Thevalueofa metaphor:OrganizationsandecosystemsMatthew M. Mars, Judith L. Bronstein, Robert F.LuschINTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDManyyearsagoPeterF. Druckerwarnedthatthemostdangerousthingintimesofturbulenceandchangeisnotthechangeitself,buttooperatewithyesterdayslogic.Thirtyyearslater,wenowincreasinglyhearthedrumbeatandalarmsirensignalingthatorganizationsofalltypescannolongersurviveusingframeworksdevelopedduringtheIndustrialRevolution.Theseoutdatedframeworksareoftenunderstoodasbeingunderpinnedbyamanufacturinglogic,goods-dominantlogic,and/orneoclassicaleconomics.Alloftheselogicsessentiallyvieweconomiesandorganizationsasmachinesthatcanbeengineeredtomaximizeprotsandcreatewealth.Thedevelopmentofanewoperatinglogicandcorre-spondingframeworksarerequired.Oneapparentlyquiteviableframeworkiscenteredonecosystemsandecologicalthinkinganditsapplicationtoorganizationsandbusiness.Theimplicationisthatanorganizationalecosystemfunctionsmuchasabiologicalecosystemdoes,andexhibitsdesirablepropertiesthataresimilartowhatonewouldseeinnature.Yetthisframeworkhasdevelopedwithoutinputfromeco-systemecologists,leadingtothequestionofwhetherorga-nizationalecosystemsexhibitbiologicalfeaturesatall.Theconsensusisthatmorerapidchangeandturbulencehaveinlargepartarisenbecauseallhumanactorsandtheorganizationsthattheycreateareincreasinglyintercon-nected,throughtheexplosivegrowthofinformationtech-nologyandespeciallythroughtheriseandspreadoftheInternet.Thishasresultedinamovefromaworldthatwasunderpinnedbywhatsomerefertoasabroadcastorpushmodel,whereinoneorfewactors(oftenthoughtofasindustryandgovernment)broadcastinformationorpushproductstomanyunconnectedactors(oftenthoughtofascustomers),toamany-to-many,actor-to-actorworldinwhichactorspullfromandcollaboratewitheachother.Thisevolvingandemergingworldisoneofmasscollaboration,co-creation,andopenbusinessmodels.Thisemergingmany-to-manyworld,whatsomerefertoasanetworkeconomy,isatteningorganizationsandeconomiesanddemocratizinggovernanceandinnovation.Searchingforafreshlensormetaphorforthisdramati-callyalteredworldhasoftenresultedinturningtobiologicalecosystemsforinsights,theoryandperspective.Biologicalecosystemsinvolveseparatelyfunctioningcompartmentsthatarelinkedbyowsofresourcesandinformation,so,atleastatasuperciallevel,theparallelsareclear.Asaresult,itisincreasinglyeasytowitnessalexiconthatincludesbusinessecosystems,innovationecosystems,edu-cationecosystems,healthcareecosystems,andserviceecosystems.Furthermore,entireinitiativesspecictothecreationandenhancementofecosystemsinvolvinghumanorganizationshaverecentlyemerged.TheInnovationEco-systemsNetwork(IEN)atStanfordUniversityisonesuchexample.However,iftheecosystemmetaphoristobeuseful,bothinilluminatinghownetworkedsystemsfunctionandingen-eratingintriguingquestionsforfurtherinvestigation,itmustbeexaminedcritically.Forinstance,asweexpanduponinlatersectionsofthispaper,bothbiologicalandorganiza-tionalecosystemsinvolvemultipleactorsthatinteractbothpositivelyandnegativelyaspairsandasgroups,andowsofresourcesthatcaneitherformordevelopoutoftheseinteractions.Furthermore,inbothcases,thesystemasawholeanditsvariouscomponentscanshowawiderangeofresilienceinthefaceofexternalchallenges.However,itiscriticalnottoextendthismetaphortoofar.Aswewilldiscuss,thereareimportantdifferencesbetweenbiologicalandorganizationalecosystems.Inparticular,onelikelylureoftheecosystemmetaphortomanagementaudiencesisthemisguidedbeliefthatnaturedesignssystemssuchthattheyexhibitlong-termstabilityacrossinterconnectedstructures.Conversely,therearesimilaritiesbetweenbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemsthathavenotbeensufcientlyOrganizationalDynamics(2012)41,271280Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.comj our nalhomepage:www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ or gdyn0090-2616/$seefrontmatter#2012ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.08.002recognized.Ifwearetolearnsomethingaboutorganizationalsystemsfrombiologicalecosystems,then,itiscriticaltodistinguishthreecategories:meaningfulsimilarities,super-cialbutpotentiallymisleadingsimilarities,andfundamen-taldifferencesbetweenthem.Inthis paper,weconsider the relevancyandimplicationsoftheprincipal constructsof biologicalecosystems for thedevelopmentof anoperational frameworkappropriatetochangingandevermoreinterconnected organizationalenvironments. We rstclarifytheconceptofabiologicalecosystemasit is currentlyunderstood in thediscipline ofecologicalscience. We thendiscusshowit canorcannot beapplied asalensforviewinghuman-createdecosystems:business,innovation, healthcare,education andothers. Toaccomplishour objectives, werstidentifyandunpackasetof principlesof biological ecosystems that arerelevanttotheconceptualdevelopmentofanorganizationaleco-systemframework. Second,weoutline ourunderstandingofthegeneralproperties of organizationalecosystems.Third, wesynthesizethesimilarities anddifferencesbetweenbiologicaland organizationalecosystems. Fourth,weconcludebyraising aset of questionsthat should beaddressedaswemoveforwardin the development andapplication of theecosystemmetaphor withinvariousorga-nizationalsettings,andbypractitionersthatincludeexecu-tive leadership, publicpolicyofcials, andorganizationalscientists.BIOLOGICAL ECOSYSTEMSEcosystemsthinking,whichdatestoearlyinthetwentiethcentury,isafundamentalcomponentofthescienceofecology.Inthissectionweunpackasetofkeyconceptsandpropositionsthatarecurrentlyunderstoodtocharacter-izetheorganizationofbiologicalecosystems.Ourgoalistodevelopabetterunderstandingofwhatappeartoberathersimpleideas,butthathavepotentiallycomplexmeaningandmajorimplicationsforhowweadapttheecosystemsmeta-phortohumanorganizationsandnetworks.Thescienceofecologystudiesrelationshipsbetweenorganismsandthebiologicalandnon-biologicalcomponentsoftheirnaturalenvironments.Ecologistsconsidertheorga-nizationofbiologicalsystemstoformahierarchy.Inagivenlocalethereareindividualorganisms,groupsoforganismsofthesamespecies(termedpopulations),interactionsbetweenpairsofspecies(suchaspredationandcompeti-tion),interactionsamonglargergroupsofspecies(termedcommunities),andinteractionsamongcommunitiesandthenon-biologicalcomponentsoftheirenvironments(e.g.,air,water,andsunlight).Inthispaperwewillsubsequentlyrefertounitsencompassingbiologicalcommunitiesandtheirnon-biologicalinputsandoutowsasbiologicalecosystems, todistinguishthemfromhumanorganizationalstructures,net-worksandsystems,whichwerefertoasorganizationalecosystems.OrganizationofBiologicalEcosystemsItiscriticaltorecognizethatbiologicalecosystemsarenotassembledbyforethought,orbyanauthoritarianhand.Noraretheydesignedtoberesilient,ortomaximizethesuccessoftheircomponentparts.Indeed,theyarenotdesignedatall.Rather,theyareemergentpropertiesofindividualorganismsinteractinginpairs,groups,andlargernetworks.Tounderstandbiologicalecosystems,itisimportanttoappreciatethattheyareorganizedbyprocessesthatformahierarchy:individualorganismsinteractwiththeirenviron-mentsandwitheachother,theseinteractionsthemselvesinteract,andwhatemergesisasetofintertwinednetworksofrelationships.Organismsthemselvesareshapedbynaturalselection:thosethatperformwell(asmeasuredbysurvivalandreproduction)areabletopersist,andthosethatperformpoorlyarenot.Interactionsamongorganismsmayleadindi-vidualstoperformwell,suchaswhenoneorganismisabletoobtainacriticalresourcefromanother,buttheymayalsoleadtofailure,suchaswhenoneisconsumedbyanother.Asaconsequence,buildingupwardshierarchically,networksofmultipleinteractionsmayperformwell,ortheymayperformpoorly.Further,theymayperformwellinonecontextbutpoorlyinanother.Thefollowing example illustrates howbiological eco-systemsareorganized, how they function,and how com-plex they canbe.Palmeretal.(2008) have studiedanAfricansavannaecosystemwith the goalof understandinghowresilientit might beif facedwithhuman-mediatedextinctionof its largest, mostcharismaticmammals.Akeyplantspecies in this systemis anacaciatree.Theacaciaprovides nectar to agroupofhighly specialized antsthat,inreturnforthis reward,aggressivelyattackother insectsthatfeed on theplant.An additional, highly competitiveantspeciesmonopolizesplants butconfersnobenetstothem. Grazingactivities of largemammalssuch asgiraffeschangethegrowth form oftheacacias,however,in awaythat favorsthebenecial antsoverthedetrimentalones.Thus,mammalsfeeding onacacia(which would seem badforthe trees)indirectlyfavor acacias benecialants. Onbalance,this is better for acacias,since small herbivoresinict greaterdamage thanlargeoneslike giraffesdo.Inthisecosystem,then, mammals,ants,andacacias arelinkedin acomplex web of interactions. Experiments haveshown that if mammalsare excluded forseveralyears,thenacacias doworse.Acacias aresuchanimportantresourcefor other species in this ecosystem that aseriesofcascadingextinctions has beenprojectedif mammalswere to behunted to extinction: if mammalswereextir-pated, then acaciatreeswouldgrow large,benetingharmfulants, whichwould lead acaciatreesto declineprecipitouslyinnumber,to thedetrimentof the entireecosystem.Although this may sound extremely complex,itisanexample of arelatively simple biological ecosystemthat emerges from multiple interactionsamongalocalgroup of species,some positive andothers negative.Itappears to bequite stableatpresent,butcouldbeeasilydisruptedif certain species,suchaslarge mammals,wereremoved.Althoughbiologicalecosystemsarestructuredbydiversecontext-dependentphenomenaandinteractionsatlowerhierarchicallevels,theemergentsystemendsupwithanumberofpredictableproperties.Thesecanbequantiedandcompared,bothovertimeforanindividualecosystemandacrossdifferentecosystems.Thesepropertiesaredis-cussedbelow.272M.M.Marsetal.PropertiesofBiologicalEcosystemsKeyplayersBiologicalecosystems cancontainhundredsor eventhou-sandsof species,but certain species playoutsizedrolesinstructuringthem. Some have beentermed keystone species:theseare species linked to many otherecologically domi-nantactors.Iftheyareremoved,it is thought thattheecosystemasawhole wouldcollapse (as would astructuralarchif its keystonewere removed). Within theecosystemdescribed above, bothgiraffesandacaciacouldbeconsid-eredkeystonespecies. Other species arecalledecosystemengineersbecause their activities (although unpremedi-tated) createandmodify habitatsthatother speciesrelyupon. Inecology,this term is not meant to implythat thereareany anticipatory design elementsor asense of agencyinterms of creating apremeditatedstructure.Thedam-con-structingbeaveris apremierexampleof anecologicalengineer.InteractionsamongplayersInteractingspecieswithinbiologicalecosystemsarelinkedbyowsofresourcesandofinformation.Theseinteractionsrangefromhighlyspecialized(i.e.,onespeciesalonecanprovidegoodsorservicesthatanotherrequires)tohighlygeneralized,andfromhighlybenecialtoquitedetrimental.Mutualismsareinteractionsthatbenetbothsetsofactors:theseplus/plusinteractionsinvolvemutuallyprotable(orfavorable)exchangesofgoodsandservices.IntheAfricanecosystemdescribedabove,acaciasandtheantstheyfeedandthatprotectthemareanexampleofahighlyspecializedmutualism.Otherinteractionsareprotabletoonlyoneactor.Theyareeitherneutraltotheotheractor(commens-alism,orplus/zerointeractions),oroutrightdetrimentaltoit.Consumptionofonespeciesbyanother(e.g.,giraffeseatingacacialeaves)isanexampleofsuchaplus/minusinteraction.Finally,interactionsmaybedetrimentaltobothactors(competition,aminus/minusinteraction).Interactionsthatareminusforoneorbothactorshaveattractedbyfarthelargestattention,andmostecosystemecologistswouldarguethattheyarethemostcriticalinshapinghowbiologicalecosystemsfunction.Mutualismshaveattractedscantattentioninanecosystemcontext,althoughthisisbeginningtochange.Diversity,nestedness,andresiliencyofhealthyecosystemsAmajordescriptorofthebiologicalecosystemisbiodiversity,orspeciesdiversity.Technically,diversityisameasurethatcombineshowmanyspeciestherearewithhowindividualsaredistributedacrossspecies;commonly,however,itsimplyreferstothenumberofspeciespresent.Theresilienceofanecosystemtoperturbation(externalinducedshocks)waslongthoughttoberelatedtospeciesdiversity,withmorediversesystemsshowinghigherstability,inpartbecauseatleastsomecomponent(s)areabletowithstandchangingconditions.Thegeneralityofthisphenomenonhasbeenhotlydebatedinrecentyears,however;experimentalstudiesgivevaryinglevelsofsupporttothispattern,underlyingmechan-ismsarestillunclear,andthedenitionofecosystemsta-bilityitselfhasbeeninconsistent(IvesandCarpenter2007).Morerecently,resiliencehasbeenrelatedtoafeatureknownasnestedness.Withinbiologicalecosystems,specialists tendtointeractwithgeneralistsratherthanwithotherspecialists.Thisresultsinanestednetworkofspeciesinteractions.Nest-ednesshas recentlybeenshowntoconferresiliency,inthesensethatifonebeginstoremovespecies,anestednetworktakeslongertocollapsecompletely(i.e.,toresultinspeciesextinctions)thananon-nestedone(Bascompte2009).Thisfeaturehasbeguntoattractwidespreadattentionbecauseofitsobviousconsequencesforecosystemconservation.Ecosystemsthemselvescanbesubjecttoakindofselec-tion:thosethathavefeaturesthatconferresiliencyshouldbeabletopersistlongerthanthosethatdonot.However,itisimportanttorecognizethefollowing.First,therateofchangeinbiologicalecosystemscanbequiteslow.Thus,ecosystemdegradationcanbeaprotractedprocessthatisdifculttorecognize;itwouldnotbesurprisingtobelievethatagivensystemwashealthyandfunctional,wheninfactitwasonthevergeofcollapse.Thus,justbecauseabiolo-gicalecosystemexistsdoesnotmeanthatitishealthy,functional,andpersistent.Second,abiologicalecosystemcanbehealthy,functionalandpersistentunderonesetofenvironmentalconditions,butnotunderanother.Amajorchallengethatecosystemecologistsfaceistoidentifytheconditionsunderwhichcurrentlyhealthysystemscanbeexpectedtodegrade.Thegeneralpointhereisthattosomeextent,onemustlooktoexogenousconditionstobeabletopredictthefateofbiologicalecosystems.Third,eveninstable,resilientbiologicalecosystems,manyorevenmostspeciesdonotperformoptimally.Mostobviously,almostallspeciesareeatenbyatleastsomeotherspecies.Iftherewerenopredators,certainpreywouldcertainlyfarebetter,atleastintheshortterm(e.g.,untiltheyexhaustedtheirownresources).Thiswouldundoubtedlyalterfundamentalfeaturesofthebiologicalecosystem,potentiallyleadingtoitscollapse.Thisiswhymostconservationistssupportthecullingofrapidlyincreasingpopulationsofherbivoressuchasdeer,mostofwhosepredatorswehaveextirpated;ifleftalone,thesespecieswilldenudeentireplantcommunities,withlong-lastingeffects.Finally,biologicalecosystemsemphaticallydonotevolveforthegreatergood.Thatis,theydonotdevelopsuchthatsomespecies(suchasprey)farepoorlyinordertoincreasethesuccessofthehigher-orderorganization(thebiologicalecosystem).Indeed,itisawell-establishedandwidelyacceptedrulethatevolutiondoesnotshapehigher-orderlevelsofecologicalorganizationthewayitshapesorganisms.Insummary, whilehumans rightly valuehighly func-tional, productive,andresilientbiologicalecosystems,these features arebestthoughtof asemergentpropertiesgenerated fromthe bottom up, ratherthan purposefulandgoal-driven propertiesthat descendfrom thetop. Further-more,exchangeamongactors is motivated byindividualwellbeing rather than byadrivetoprotect and enhancethecollectiveconditionof the ecosystem. Inother words,exchange is self-directed rathercommunity-oriented.These attributesilluminateanessential butnot yetwellrecognized way in whichbiologicalecosystemsare funda-mentally differentfrom ecosystem-like structuresthathumans,in part moredeliberately, design. Weconsiderthese structuresnext.Thevalueofametaphor:Organizationsandecosystems273ORGANIZATIONAL ECOSYSTEMSTheuseofecologicalconceptsbysociologistsandorganiza-tionalscientiststodescribeandstudysocialarrangementsisnotnew.Forinstance,humanecologyisanestablishedsocio-logicalframeworkthatfocusesontheinteractionsandstruc-turesthattiehumanstogetherascommunities(whatecologistscallpopulations,confusingly).Organizationalecol-ogyalsomergesbiologicalconceptswitheconomicandsocio-logicalprinciplesinanattempttobetterunderstandthelifespanofindividualorganizations.Althoughatleastsuper-ciallyecologicalinconcept,bothofthesewell-establishedeldslieoutsideofthescienticdisciplineofecology,whichbytraditionhasgivenrelatively littleattentiontohumanactiv-ities,exceptinsofarastheydisruptpatternsinnature.Theecosystemsmetaphorisoftenusedbyscholars,busi-nessjournalistsandpractitionerstoinformallydescribetheconnectionsamongorganizationsthatsharecommonorcomplementaryfeatures,andthatmotivateorfacilitatesomeformofexchangeofinformationandotherresources.Themetaphorcanalsobeusedtoreferencesocialstructuresthatarecomprisedoflooseandtighttiesthatenableorenhancetheinteractionsamongdiverseorganizationsandactors.Forinstance,theinnovationecosystemmetaphorisoftenusedbyscholarsandpractitionerstodescribecomplexnetworksofactors,suchasprivateindustries,nanciers,universities,andgovernmentalagenciesthatarelinkedtogetherthroughthepursuitofcommontechnologicalgoalsand/ormutualeconomicgains.Ourcurrentefforttodevelopamoreclearlyarticulatedconceptualframeworkfromwhichtounderstandandstudyorganizationalecosystemsstartsbyprovidingadenitionofanorganizationalecosystemandintroducingsuchasysteminthecontextoftheforest-basedindustry.OrganizationofOrganizationalEcosystemsOrganizationalecosystemsarecomprisedofdiverseactorsandorganizations,whichoftenenterintorelationshipsandparticipateinexchangesbasedonawiderangeofintentions.Organizationalecosystemsingeneralarenotanchoredinpre-determinedgoalsandagendas,althoughtheindividualorganizationswithindopurposefullydevelopandpursueagendas.(Wediscussthegoalsandagendasofindividualorganizationsingreaterdetaillaterinthepaper.)Instead,informationandresourceowsconnectorganizationswithinorganizationalecosystemsinspiteofthepresenceofdiverseandsometimesevencompetinggoalsandagendas.Forinstance,theforestindustryincludesmarket-offeringandprot-seekingorganizations.However,theseindustriesarelinkedtootherorganizationsthatincludesocialmovementgroupsthatcampaign,litigateorlobbyagainstthem,aswellasgovernmentorganizationsthattaxtheseindustries,reg-ulatethemvialaws,andevenoccasionallyincentthemwithstateaidorsubsidies.Alloftheseorganizationsthenconnecttoeachothereitherdirectlyorindirectlytocreatetheforestproductsandpackagingecosystem.Thus,organizationalecosystemsshouldbemostlyunderstoodasemergentphe-nomenathatresultfromatenuousbalancebetweenactoragencyandsocialstructure,ratherthanfrompurposefulengineering.Advancementsmadeleadinguptoandduringthecurrentinformationtechnologyagehaveenhancedthecommunica-tivecapacitiesofhumanstothepointthatinteractionsarenolongerconnedbyspatialconstraints(otherthanwhengeopoliticalconstraintsinterferewithactorinterface).Thisincreasedconnectednesspermitsactorsandorganizationstointeractinavarietyofwayswithlittletonodelay.Inturn,planningandthediffusionofinnovationatavarietyofscalesareimproved.Suchenhancedcommunicativecapacitieshavefueledagrowingtrendinwhichdiversesetsoforgani-zationsareengaginginsystem-widedesignandplanningatvariouslevelsandacrossexpansivegeographicdistances.Thisobservationleadsustoraiseanexceptiontoourpreviousclaimthatorganizationalecosystemsareemergentandnotdesigned,planned,orengineered.Thehierarchicalemergenceandstructureoforganiza-tionalecosystemsvaryaccordingtothetypesanddiversityofactorsandfunctionsthatarenestedandembeddedwithinthem.Morespecically,organizationalecosystemscandevelopinoneoftwoverydistinctways.Theycandevelopfromthetopdown,whichismostoftenthecasewithincentralized,government-controlledeconomiesorwheremarketmonopolymayexist.Alternatively,organizationalecosystemscangrowfromthebottomup,asincompetitivemarket-orientedeconomieswhereindividualactorsrejectoracceptmarketofferings,andwithchangemovementsthatemergewithinsocietieswhereactorshavetherelativefree-domtosociallyorpoliticallyorganize.Thisvariationinemergenceanddevelopmentresultsinaddedcomplexitytothetaskofidentifying,analyzing,andultimatelyworkingwithinorganizationalecosystems.Regardlessofhierarchicalstructure,organizationsoftenformnetworksaroundcommonorcomplementaryculturalfeatures.Forexample,organizationsintheforestindustryandthoseinthepaperandpackagingindustryshareacommonlogicandworldviewthatcentersonthemarketapplicationofcertainnaturalresources.However,tiescanalsobeformedbetweenorganizationsthatformoutofcompetinglogics.Forinstance,socialmovementgroupsthatseektopreventdeforestationshareanecosystemwithorga-nizationscomprisingtheforestandpaperpackagingindus-tries.Thus,organizationalecosystemsemergethroughthecomplexformationoftiesbetweenorganizationsthatareunderpinnedbylogicsandworldviewsthataresometimescomplimentary,butothertimescompeting.Thiscontradictsthecommonmisunderstandingthatorganizationalecosys-temsarebuiltexclusivelyuponharmoniousrelationssharedbymemberorganizations.Inspiteofthebroaderconditionsthatleadtotheemergenceoforganizationalecosystems,theindividualorganizationswithinhavepurposefulgoalsandagendasthatarelikelytovaryacrossthesystem.Inparti-cular,anindividualorganizationcanpurposefullyacttoachieveadenedgoalsuchasrealizingareturnoninvest-ment,capturingashareofamarket,electingapolitician,oradvancingasocialcause.However,thepurposeofasingularorganizationandthoseoforganizationalecosystemsshouldnotbeviewedasbeingrigidandfullypredetermined,withwell-denedgoalsandoutcomes.Inparticular,oncenestedwithinanetworkofotherorganizations(i.e.,anorganiza-tionalecosystem),anorganizationislikelytoworktoachieveadifferentpurposeormultiplepurposes.Forexample,competitivesystemscreateexternalitiesthatcannotbe274M.M.Marsetal.attributedaspurposefulorstructured.To returntotheforestandpackagingindustriesexample,nooneinthepaperandpackagingindustrysetoutwiththegoalofcontributingtothealterationofnaturalhabitats.However,asthenegativeeffectsofdeforestationontheenvironmentincrease,andpressuresofenvironmentalactivismgroupsbuild,thatencouragescompaniestobecomemoreengagedinconserva-tionefforts.Theprimarypointhereisthatorganizationalecosystemsshouldinmostcasesbeviewedmoreasorganicstructuresthatdevelopovertime,ratherthanasintention-allydesignedandengineeredmechanicalsystems.Organizationalecosystemsarenotstatic.Thosethatdonotevolveovertimeforthegreatergoodofsocietyareputinjeopardyofbeingeliminatedorbecomingobsolete.Forexample,institutionscaninterveneandeliminateorganiza-tionsecosystemsthatarecausingmoreharmthangood.Forinstance,agovernmentregulatoryagencycouldshutdownanentireforestindustryifthatindustryiscarelesslydestroy-ingwoodlands.PropertiesofOrganizationalEcosystemsKeyplayersAsisthecasewiththeirbiologicalcounterparts,organiza-tionalecosystemscontainadiverserangeofactorsandorganizations.Certainorganizationsemergeaskeystones,uponwhichecosystemsthenbecomedependent.Inthecaseoftheforestindustryecosystem,companiesthatharvestlumbercouldbeconsideredkeystoneplayers,inthesensethatwithouttherawmaterialssuppliedbysuchbusinesses,otherforestindustrieswouldnotbeabletooperate.Otherindustriesalsoactaskeystones,highlightingthefactthatasingleecosystemcancontainmultiplekeystones.Organizationalecosystemsalsoincludeengineersthatcreate,shape,andmodifytheconditionsunderwhichotherorganizationsoperate.Inthecaseoftheforestindustry,governmentscanbeconsideredengineers,inthattheyshapeandenforcethepoliciesthatframeandregulatehowtheindustryistooperate.Organizationalengineering,whichisperformedbyhumans,alsohasinuencebeyondlocalset-tings.Specically,humanslearn,adaptandreplicateinnova-tions,whichexpandstheimpactoforganizationalengineeringacrossmultiplesettings.InteractionsamongplayersInteractions, whicharelinkedbyows ofresources andinformation,also vary asafunctionof thebenets theyproduceand theharm they cause.Justasin biologicalecosystems,mutualisms canexist in whichbothpartiesbenet from exchangesofgoodsand services. For exam-ple,lumber suppliersandpaperproductmanufacturersengagein mutually benecial exchange interactions. Inter-actions canalsosometimes benetoneorganization with-outhavingany discernibleimpact upon another(commensalism).Theeffectsof competitionwithinanorganizationalecosystemcanbeeither benecial or harm-fuldepending on thecircumstances.This potentialtobenetfrom competition isinuenced bynorms,rules,andinstitutions,whichare socialphenomena notfoundwithinbiological ecosystems.Perhapsone of the mostinuentialinstitutionshasbeenvoluntaryexchangesys-tems between humanandorganizational actors; in short,institutions in whichactors arenot forced toexchangewithanotheractor, buthaverelatively freechoice.Diversity,nestedness,andresiliencyofhealthyecosystemsOrganizationalecosystemsarenestedstructures.Currently,nestednessisobservedmostlythroughoverlapsinthefunc-tionsandprioritiesofthevariousactorsandorganizationsthattogethercompriseanecosystem.Lessoftenisthecaseofactorsandorganizationsbeingcompletelynestedwithinalargerorganization.Forexample,asmall-scalepaperman-ufacturerthatsellsitsproductstoonlyoneretailerisnestedentirelywithinthatretailer.Themovementtowardhorizon-talorganizationalstructuresaswellastheconnectednessmadepossiblethroughinformationtechnologieshasmadecompletenestednessanexceptionalratherthanstandardarrangement.Thedegreeofnestednesspositivelyaffectstheresiliencyofanorganizationalecosystem.Themorenestedanecosys-tembecomes,themorelikelyitisthatcontingencieswillbecreatedthatneedtobeacteduponintheeventanactorororganizationfailssomewherewithin.Inotherwords,orga-nizationshavewithinecosystemsback-upplansthatbecomeapparentonlywhenanassociatefailsorotherwisebecomesunavailable.Forexample,thenumerousoverlapsofactorsandorganizationsinvariousforestandforest-relatedindustriescreateanentangledstructurethatthroughredun-dancyactstoenhancetheresiliencyoftheoverallecosys-tem.Forexample,amanufacturerofpaperproductsislikelytohaverelationshipswithmultiplerawmaterialprocessors.Intheeventthatoneprocessorfails,themanufacturercancontinuetooperatethroughexistingpartnershipswithalter-nativeprocessors.Thus,thenestednessoforganizationalecosystemsworkstohelppreventactorsandorganizationsfromindividualandsystemicfailure.Embeddednessisthebindingofanorganizationalecosys-temthrougheconomicandnon-economicarrangementsofexchangethataremadebetweenactorsandorganizations.Accordingly,exchangesofvarioustypesactastheVelcrothatfastensactorsandorganizationstogethertoformthenestedstructuresthatareorganizationalecosystems.Exchangetypicallyoccursbetweenspecialistsandgeneral-istsratherthanbetweenspecialists,similartotheinterac-tionpatternsobservedinbiologicalecosystems.Exchangealsooccurswithinaculturalcontext,andthusisasmuchasocialand/orpoliticalarrangementasitisaneconomicprocess.Accordingly,exchangeisguidedbybotheconomicandnon-economicinstitutions.Forinstance,theregulationofeconomicexchangeispartiallygovernedbylaw,andpartiallybysocialcontractsandnormsofexchangeandbehavior.Inthecaseoftheforestindustryecosystem,reg-ulatoryagenciesandenvironmentalactivistgroupsrepresentinstitutionsthatareembeddedinthesystemandinuenceeconomicandsocialexchangesthatarecenteredonissuesofcarbonreductionandoverallconservation.Theforestindustryprovidesanexampleofhowdiverseorganizationsbecomelinkedthroughexchangesandembeddedinnestednetworks.Forestryandpackagingrmsarelikelytobecomeapartofanecosystemthatiscenteredontechnologicalinnovations,withtheintentofenhancingopportunitiestobetterservecustomerneedsandgrowprots.Activistgroupsandnon-protorganizations,Thevalueofametaphor:Organizationsandecosystems275however,arelikelytojointhesameecosystemwiththehopeofadvancingsocialorpoliticalchangethroughgainsmadebytechnologicalapplications.Governmentsarealsolikelytoenterthisecosystemthroughtaxationofproperty,revenues,protsorincomesofcitizenactorsinordertoacquiretheresourcesneededtoprovidepublicservices.Theresiliencyofanorganizationalecosystemandthediversityofitsmembershiparelikelytobepositivelyrelated.Specically,enhanceddiversicationdecreasesdependencyonanyoneparticularfunctionororganization.Forinstance,anorganizationalecosystemmayadapttoanunanticipatedperturbationbyremovingormarginalizinganorganizationthatisnolongercriticalbasedonsomeprofoundchange,and/orintroducingorpromotinganotherorganizationthatissuddenlyessentialtothewellbeingofthesystem.Despitehavingcertaindegreesofresiliency,otherwisehealthyorganizationalecosystemscansufferorevenfailwhenchangeoccurs.Thetimeittakesforanecosystemtodegradeorfailcanbebrieforlengthy.Thus,aseeminglyhealthyecosystemcaninfactbelosingthecapacitytopersistwithoutshowingnoticeablesignsofdegradation.Unlikespeciesinbiologicalecosystems,organizationalleadersdohavethepotentialtoforecastfutureconditionsandcreatestrategiesandstructures(e.g.,institutions)designedtodecreaseriskandincreaseuncertainty.Ofcourse,thereisnoguaranteethatsuchproactiveplanningwillpreventdegradation.Inparticularandaspreviouslymentioned,thoseorganizationalecosystemsthatdonotevolveforthegreatergoodofsocietywillbeinjeopardyofbeingelimi-natedorbecomingobsolete.Theprecedingpresentationofthepropertiesofbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemsprovidesaplatformfromwhichtobegintoprovideformtothevagueandundenedecosystemmetaphorthatisincreasinglyusedbyorganiza-tionalleaders,corporateconsultants,journalists,andeveninsomecasesscholars.Inthenextsection,weidentifythesimilaritiesanddifferencesinthetwotypesofecosystems.Thiscomparisonillustratestheopportunitiesandlimitationsoftheecosystemmetaphorintheorganizationalcontext.COMPARISONOurcomparisonofthepropertiesofbiologicalandorganiza-tionalecosystemshastwogoals.First,weaimtoillustrateTable1SimilaritiesBetweenBiologicalandOrganizationalEcosystems.BiologicalecosystemsOrganizationalecosystemsFundamentalorganizationalfeaturesBiologicalecosystemsareemergent.Organizationalecosystemsareinmostcasesemergent.Theexceptionisthegrowingtrendoforganizationstryingtodo moresystem-widedesignandplanningatvariousscales.The existenceofabiologicalecosystemdoesnotmeanitishealthy,functionalandpersistent.Theexistenceofanorganizationalecosystemdoesnotmeanit ishealthy,functionalandpersistent. Abiologicalecosystemcanbehealthy,functionalandpersistentunderonesetofenvironmentalconditionsandnotothers.Anorganizationalecosystemcanbehealthy,functionalandpersistentunderonesetofeconomic,socialand/orenvironmentalconditionsandnotothers. Manyorevenmostspeciesdonotperformoptimallyevenwhenthereisaresilientbiologicalecosystem.Manyorevenmostactorsdonotperformoptimallyevenwhenthereisaresilientorganizationalecosystem.EcosystempropertiesThestabilityofabiologicalecosystemisdependentonkeystonespecies.Thestabilityofanorganizationalecosystemisdependenton keystoneactors. Eventualsystemcollapseislikelytooccurifkeystonespeciesareremoved.Interactionofspeciesislinkedbyowsofresourcesandinformation.Interactionofactorsandorganizationsarelinkedbyowsofresourcesandinformation.Biologicalecosystemsaremadeupofinteractionsthatrangewidelyinoutcome.Organizationalecosystemsaremadeupofinteractionsthat rangewidelyinoutcome. Mutualismbenetsbothspecies.Mutualismbenetsbothactors. Commensalismbenetsonespeciesandnottheother.Commensalismbenetsoneactorororganizationand nottheother. Predationbenetsonespeciesbutharmsanother.Predationbenetsoneactororganizationbutharmsanother.Speciescanbespecializedorgeneralized.Actorscanbespecializedorgeneralized. Specialiststendtointeractwithgeneralistsratherthanotherspecialists.Actorstendtointeractwithgeneralistsratherthanotherspecialists.Nestednessariseswithinnetworksofspeciesinteraction.Nestednessariseswithinnetworksofactorinteraction. Nestednessconfersmoreresiliency.Nestednessmostoftenconfersmoreresiliency. Collapsefromtheremovalofspeciesinanestednetworktakeslonger.Collapsefromtheremovalofactorsinanestednetworktakeslonger.276M.M.Marsetal.overlapsinbiologicalandorganizationalconceptsandcon-ditionsthatwecontendshouldunderpintheorganizationalecosystemsmetaphor(seeTable1).Second,weaimtoidentifymisguidedassumptionsabouthowbiologicalsystemsareorganizedthathavecompromisedtheusefulnessoftheecosystemsmetaphorforunderstandingorganizationalprac-ticeandinnovation(seeTable2).SIMILARITIESItiswidelyrecognizedthatorganizationalecosystemsarelikebiologicalecosystemsinthattheyareemergentphe-nomena:thatis,theymostoftenemergeandbecomeestab-lishedthroughthedevelopmentoftiesthatlinkcomponents(speciesororganizations).Indeed,thisislikelythefeatureofecosystemsthatrstledthemetaphortopenetrateintothehumansphere.Speciesandorganizationsaresimilar,inthatbothgroupsaremadeupofactorsandarelinkedtoothergroupswithinacommonecosystem.Linkagesarecreatedbyowsofresourcesandinformation.Withinbothkindsofecosystems,thewaysinwhichresourcesandinformationowvaryaccordingtotheoutcomeoftheinteraction(mutuallyorunilaterallybenecialorantagonistic).Whenleadersoforganizationswithintheecosystemcon-sidertheirbehavior,itbecomesimportantforthemtounder-standthenatureandmanagementofinteractionsamongorganizations.Thisallowsthemtobetterenhancebenetsgainedthroughmutuallybenecialinteractions,andtolowertheharmcreatedthroughinteractions.Ofcourse,someorganizationsholdingtheadvantagemayactivelychoosestrategiesthatincreasegainsthroughexploitativeandpre-datorypractices.Anessentialquestioniswhatarethepotentiallong-termeffectsontheecosystemofoverexploit-ingorkillingoff organizationsthatareatadisadvantage.Forinstance,isthesustainabilityofanorganizationaleco-systemjeopardizedwhenakeystoneorganizationisover-exploited,asitisinbiologicalecosystems?Interestingly,andmuchlessrecognized,isthefactthatmanyfeaturesconferringresiliencyonecosystemsaresimilarinboththebiologicalandorganizationalrealms.Withinbothkindsofecosystems,someactorsarespecialistsandothersaregeneralists.Inbothcases,specialistsmostofteninteractwithgeneralistsratherthanotherspecialists,forminganestedstructurethatimprovestheoverallresiliencyoftheecosystem.Inanestedsystem,theremovalofcertainspeciesororganizationsdoesnotinevitablyfullycompromisetheabilityoftheecosystemasawholetopersist.Inotherwords,thecollapseofanecosystem,whetherbiologicalororganizational,duetotheremovalofanactorfromanestednetwork,willbepreventedorprolonged.Inaddition,theresiliencyofagivenorganizationaleco-systemislikelytobepositivelyinuencedbythedegreeofdiversityoftheactorsandorganizationswithin.Recallthattherelationshipbetweenresiliencyanddiversityiscurrentlyunderdebateintheecologyliterature.Thus,thisrelation-shipisnotconsideredtobeapropertysharedbyorganiza-tionalandbiologicalecosystems.However,theresiliencyofTable2DifferencesBetweenBiologicalandOrganizationalEcosystems.BiologicalecosystemsOrganizationalecosystemsFundamentalorganizationalfeaturesSpeciesdonotforecastfutureconditions,nordotheyimplementstrategiesandstructureswiththegoalofdecreasingriskandincreasingcertainty.Humanactorsleadorganizationsandtrytoforecastfutureconditionsandcreatestrategiesandstructures(e.g.,institutions)designedtodecreaseriskandincreasecertainty.Biologicalecosystemsdonotincludecontingencyplanstoenactshouldakeyactororspeciesfail.Organizationalecosystemsoftenincludecontingencyplanstoenactshouldakeyactorororganizationfail.Biologicalecosystemsarestructuredbyinteractionsat lowerhierarchicallevels(i.e.,grassrootsinnature).Organizationalecosystemscanbestructuredbyinteractionsat lowerorhigherhierarchicallevels,andthuscanbegrassrootsortop-downinnature.Biologicalecosystemsdonotevolveforthegreatergood.Organizationalecosystemsthatdonotovertimeevolveforthegreatergoodofsocietywillbeinjeopardyofbeingeliminatedorbecomingobsolete.EcosystempropertiesCompetitionisharmfultobothspecies.Competitioncanbebenecialorharmfultoinvolvedactorsandorganizations.Humanshavenorms,values,andinstitutions(e.g.,laws)thatregulatecompetitionintheinterestofthegreatergood.Biologicalecosystemsemerge,function,andcollapseorganicallyandwithouttheaidorinterventionofpurposefullydesignedstrategiesandstructures.Organizationscandesignandmaster-plansystemsandnetworks.Ecosystemengineerscreateandmodifyhabitatsthatotherspeciesrelyupon.Humanengineers(actors)maycreateconditionsthathavethepotentialforimpactbeyondthelocalsetting. Humanshavetheabilitytoadaptandreplicateinnovations,whichexpandstheimpactofhumanengineeringacrossmultiplesettings.Thevalueofametaphor:Organizationsandecosystems277bothbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemsisdispropor-tionatelyaffectedbythewellbeingandpresenceofkeystoneactors.Ifkeystoneactorsareharmedorremovedfromecosystems,failurebecomeshighlylikely,ifnotinevitable.Acriticaltaskforleadersistodeterminewhen,why,andhowtheirorganizationsshouldactaseitherageneralistorspe-cialist,aswelltodeterminetheirpositionsrelativetoanddependenciesonthekeystoneactorswithintheirnetworks.Finallyandveryimportantly,existenceperseisnotatrustworthymeasureofthegeneralhealth,functionality,orpersistenceofeitherbiologicalororganizationalecosystems.Anecosystemmaydegradeataratebelowthelevelofdetection,atleastuntilitbeginstodissolve.Furthermore,anecosystemcanberobustunderaparticularsetofcondi-tions,butsufferandcollapseifconditionschangeinasubtleordramaticway.Similarly,notallactorswithinexistingecosystemsfunctionorperformatoptimallevels.Infact,itmaybethecasethatmostspeciesororganizationsperformatbelow-optimallevels,andthusmakelimitedcontributionstotheoverallhealthandresiliencyofagivenecosystem.Intheorganizationalcontext,leadersshouldconsistentlyeval-uatetheoverallperformanceoftheecosystemwithinwhichtheirorganizationisnested,treatingitmuchasaconserva-tionistinterestedinmaintainingahealthybiologicalsystemwould.Theinsightsgainedthroughsuchongoingevaluationwillhelpequipleaderswiththeinformationneededtomakestrategicjudgmentsregardingtheimpactsofbroadereco-systemconditionsonthehealthandresiliencyoftheirownorganizations.DIFFERENCESItiscriticalthatthedifferencesbetweenbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemsbeidentiedandunderstood.Otherwise,mistakenbeliefsthreatentodegradethetrust-worthiness,developmentandapplicationoftheorganiza-tionalecosystemmetaphor.Inthissub-section,wehighlightsixfalseparallelsthatexistbasedonkeydifferencesbetweenbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemsthathavebeenoverlookedormisunderstood.ThesearesummarizedinTable2.Therstfalseparallelistheassumptionthatcompetitionwithinbothbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemscaneitherbenetorharmspeciesoractors,dependingoncon-ditionsandcircumstances.Infact,theconsequencesofcompetitiondiffer.Inbiologicalecosystems,competitionisalwaysharmfultoallinvolvedspecies.Inorganizationalecosystems,competitioncanbeeitherbenecialorharmfuldependingonthecircumstances.Incaseswherecompetitionresultsinbenecialoutcomes,interactionsbetweenorgani-zationsareinuencedbynormsandvalues,andatleastsomewhatstructuredbyinstitutionsthatgovernpracticesthroughestablishedrules.Accordingly,competitionisregu-latedinwayssuchthatittakesplaceintheinterestofthegreatergood.Theseinteractionshavenoparallelinnon-humansystems.Unregulatedcompetitionmayalsotakeplacebetweenorganizationswithvariedoutcomes.Acommonassumptionisthatnaturalstructuresexistthatwereintentionallydesignedtogovernthefunctioningofbiologicalecosystems.Thisassumptionisfundamentallywrong,andthisleadstothesecondfalseparallel:theplanningandforesightthatoftengoesintothedevelopmentoforganizationalecosystemsisnotobservedwithinbiologi-calecosystems.Itiswellknownthatindustries,govern-ments,andothersectorsoftentrytodesignsystemsandnetworks.However,biologicalecosystemsemerge,function,andcollapseorganicallywithouttheinterventionofpurpo-sefullydesignedstrategiesandstructures.Consequently,ifthepotentialbenetsoftheecosystemmetaphoraretoberealized,attentionshouldbegiventonurturingthecondi-tionsunderwhichorganizationalecosystemscanemergeandthrive.Thisismoreusefulthaneffortsdevotedtotryingtoconstruct(orforce)thedevelopmentofecosystems.Athirdfalseparallelisbasedontheassumptionthatbiologicalecosystemsexhibitstrategiesfordecreasingfuturerisksanduncertainties.Infact,suchstrategiesarenotobservedinbiologicalecosystems,simplybecauseveryfewspeciesapartfromourselvespossesstheintellectualcapabilitiessuchforesightwouldrequire.Organizationalecosystems,incontrast,doinvolvestrategizingandplanningwiththeintenttoforecastfutureconditionsandcreatestructuresdesignedtomitigateriskandincreasecertainty.Planningandstrategizingacrossorganizationalecosystemsvariesinscaleandoccursaccordingtorepeatingfractalpatternsthatpromotethedevelopmentandenhancethediffusionofinnovation.Institutions(e.g.,legalsystems,educationalsystems)areprimaryexamplesofstructuresdesignedandenactedbyhumanactorswiththegoalofcoordinatinginteractions,decreasingrisk,andincreasingcertaintywithinandacrossorganizationalecosystems.Furthermore,organizationalecosystemscanincludecontin-gencyplanstobecalleduponshouldakeyactorororganiza-tionfail.Biologicalecosystemsdonot.Thus,thecapacitytomanage(oratleastinuence)ecosystemsisacharacter-isticthatdistinguishesorganizationalecosystemsfrombio-logicalecosystems.Thefourthfalseparallelisbasedonperceptionsofhowengineeringoccurswithinbiologicalecosystemscomparedwithorganizationalecosystems.Inbothsettings,engineerscreateandmodifyhabitatsthatotherspeciesororganiza-tionscometorelyupon.Whileengineersinbiologicaleco-systems(e.g.,beaversinapond)havestrictlylocaleffects,humanengineeringhasthepotentialtocreateconditionswhoseeffectsoftenextendfarbeyondthemostimmediateecosystem.However,theeffectsofengineeringperformedwithinbiologicalecosystemsarelocallyconned.Thespreadofconditionscreatedthroughhumanengineeringatthelocallevelisinlargepartduetothehumancapacitytoreplicateandadaptinnovationsacrossmultiplesettings.Thediffusionofinnovationisespeciallypowerfulinthecontemporaryera,wherecommunicativecapabilitieshavebeensoprofoundlyexpandedbyadvancesininformationtechnology.Thefthfalseparallelrelatestohowbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemscometobestructured.Asstatedearlier,bothbiologicalandorganizationalecosystemssharesimilaremergentproperties.However,theinteractionsthatresultintheemergenceofeachecosystemcanbestructuredinnotablydifferentways.Ontheonehand,biologicaleco-systemsareexclusivelygrassrootsphenomenathatareexclu-sivelystructuredbyinteractionsatthelowerhierarchicallevels.Ontheotherhand,organizationalecosystemscanbestructuredbyinteractionsatlowerorhigherhierarchicallevels,andthuscanbegrassrootsortop-downinnature.278M.M.Marsetal.Thenalandmostimportantfalseparallelrelatestotheassumptionthatbothkindsofecosystemsareanchoredinprinciplesofthegreatergood.Forbiologicalecosystems,thisisnotthecase.Species,boththosewithcriticalrolestoplayinsystemstabilityandallothersaswell,exhibitgoalsandagendasfavoredbynaturalselectionthatmaximizetheirownwellbeing.Conversely,organizationalecosystemsareexpectedtodevelopovertime,throughforesightandpur-posefulplanning,inwaysthatcontributetothebettermentofthoseorganizationsandofsocietyasawhole.Thoseorganizationalecosystemsthatdonotevolveinamannerthatpromotesthegreatergoodareputinjeopardyofbeingeliminatedorbecomingobsolete.Inthiscase,thegroup,ratherthantheindividual,istheunitofnaturalselection.Furthermore,organizationalecosystemsandtheorganiza-tionswithinareaccountabletoandmotivatedbyinstitu-tionalpressuresoftenexhibitedbyexogenousforcesthatrangefromculturalexpectationstogovernmentalactiontoeconomicrealities.Thus,leadersmustconsideramultitudeoffactorsthatextendwellbeyondtheirownimmediategoalsandagendaswhenconsideringthepositionoftheirorganiza-tionswithingivennetworksandsystems.CONCLUSIONTheecosystemmetaphorisausefultoolforunderstandingandpredictingtheconditionsthatshapeandinuenceorga-nizationalsystems.However,itsappealtobusinessleadersandscholarshasinlargepartbeenbasedononecentralmisguidedassumption:thatbiologicalecosystemsarebothcommunal(supportedbyindividualcommitmentstothegreatergood)andstable.Wehaveattemptedheretoclearupthisfundamentalmisunderstanding,aswellastodiscussandilluminatewherebiologicalandorganizationalecosys-temsoverlapandareinherentlydifferent.Thedegreeofcommunalitywithinbiologicalecosystemsisheavilydebatedwithintheecologyliterature.Howindi-vidualspeciesworkingtomaximizetheirownchancesofsuccesscontributetothewellbeingofnaturalecosystemsremainsuncleartoecologists.Infact,innovationinnaturehappensmostlybyaccidentandtypicallyconfersanadvan-tagetoaparticularunitratherthantothesystemasawhole.Thus,thereislittlereasonforbusinessleadersandorganiza-tionalscientiststolooktonatureforexamplesofhowinnovationoccursforthegreatergoodofasystem.Thereis alsonormevidencethatbiological ecosys-temsbecome stableover time and that innovation is amechanismfor achievingandenhancingsuchstability.Instead,innovation of aspecies(orother unit) mayincrease,decrease, or haveno effect on theoverall sta-bility of agiven biological ecosystem.Thus,theeffectsofinnovation diffusion on the ecosystem(whichoccurs, forinstance, when anadvantage over anantagonist hasbeenachieved andspreadsthroughoutthepopulation) areuncertain.Forexample,anorganism thatinnovatesinsuchaway that it cannolongerbeeatenbyapredatordisruptsthe established food webandthereby causes arippleeffect across theentireecosystem.However,theconceptualmeritsof the organizationalecosystem metaphoraresuchthat it should certainly beretained,onceappropriatelyclaried. Inparticular, thepotential implications fordeveloping arobustframeworkfor identifying,analyzing, and managing organizations inanincreasingly complex and dynamic worldare substan-tial.For instance, studiesof biologicalecosystems thathaveinvestigated in depththeshort- and long-term effectsofuncertainty,change, andperturbation may alsotrans-lateto modelswith the predictivepowerforunderstandingthedynamicsof organizational networksand systems.However, suchpotentialdependsonthedevelopment ofarobustframework that is basedonecological principlesandaccountsfor boththesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenbiological andorganizational environments.Importantquestionsthathaveyet to beraised thatarecriticalto the further developmentand implementationofsuchaframework include,but arenot limited to: Whenandwhyshould anorganizationactaseither ageneralistorspecialist?How is the health of organizations dependent onthewellbeingof theorganizational ecosystemwithinwhichitisnested and embedded? How resilient is anorganizationinthe contextofabroaderecosystem?How cantheemergence of neworganizationalecosystems beantici-patedorforecast?Last, should theidentityof the CEOshift from that of chiefexecutiveofcerto thatof chiefecosystem ofcer?Ifso,whatwouldtheshift entailandlooklike?Thevalueofametaphor:Organizationsandecosystems279SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYRonAdnerarguedtheimportanceofassessingtherisksinherenttormsoperatingwithinagiveninnovationeco-systemandfortheneedtoestablishrealisticgoalsandeffectiveactionplansasnewopportunitiesareactedoninMatchYourInnovationStrategytoYourInnovationEcosys-tem,HarvardBusinessReview, 2006,84(4),98107.JordiBascompteprovidesanexcellentandaccessibleoverviewtotheuseofnetworkanalysisforunderstandingthestructureandfunctionofbiologicalecosystemsinDis-entanglingtheWebofLife,Science, 2009,325,416419.PeterF. DruckersManaginginTurbulentTimes(NewYork:HarperBusiness,1980)detailedtheneedfornewmanage-mentapproachesandorganizationalstrategiesthatarecap-ableofrecognizingandcapitalizingonbothopportunitiesandthreatswithinacontemporaryeconomymarkedbyrapidchangeandquicklyturningcyclesofinnovationandobsoles-cence.MichaelT.HannanandJohnFreemanintroducedtheimportanceofintegratingecologicalprinciplesandconceptsintomodelsdesignedtoaideintheunderstandingofenviron-mentalinuencesontheshapingand re-shapingorganiza-tionalstructuresinThePopulationEcologyofOrganizations,AmericanJournal ofSociology,1989,95(2),425439.InTheKeystoneAdvantage:WhattheNewDynamicsofBusinessEcosystemsMeanforStrategyInnovationandSus-tainability(Boston,MA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,2004),MarcoIansitiandRoyLeviencontendedthatsimilartobiologicalcounterparts,thefunctionalityofbusinesseco-systemsarelargelydependentonthepresenceofhealthykeystoneactors.Ecologistsoncebelievedinthemantrathatbiodiversityequalsstability.Decadesofresearchhavecalledthissimpleideaintoquestion,assummarizedwellbyAnthonyIvesandStephenCarpenterinStabilityandDiversityofEcosys-tems,Science, 2007,317,5862.InBreakdownofanAnt-PlantMutualismFollowstheLossofLargeHerbivoresfromanAfricanSavanna,Science, 2008,319,192195,ToddPalmerandcollaboratorsprovideanoutstandingexampleofacompactecosystemwithcloselyinterdependentspecies.Inthiscase,theconsequencesofperturbingtheabundancesofdifferentspeciesareunusuallyclear.ExecutiveSummaryAnewoperatinglogicisbeingdevelopedasactorsandtheorganizationstheycreatebecomemoreinterconnectedinanincreasinglynetworkedglobaleconomyandsociety.Onepopularframeworksupportingthedevelopmentofthenewlogicisbasedonanecosystemmetaphor.Thismetaphorhasbeenusedtodescribeandbetterunderstandorganizationalconditionsandchangewithineldssuchasbusiness,educa-tion,andhealthcare.Thepotentialimplicationsfordevel-opingarobustecosystemframeworkforidentifying,analyzing,andmanagingorganizationsinanincreasinglycomplexanddynamicworldaresubstantial.However,theconceptofanorganizationalecosystemremainsundened.Thus,thereexiststheneedforametaphoricalframeworkthatisgroundedinecologicalprinciplesandaccountsforboththesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenbiologicalandorganizationalenvironments.Weworktoconceptualizesuchaframeworkinthispaper.MatthewM.MarsistheassociatedeanofoutreachandafacultyassociateintheMcGuireCenterforEntrepreneurshipintheEllerCollegeofManagementattheUniversityofArizona.Hisexpertiseisinacademicentrepreneurshipandinnovation(Tel.:+15206268201;fax:+15206265269;e-mail:mmars@email.arizona.edu).JudithL.BronsteinisUniversityDistinguishedProfessorofEcologyandEvolutionaryBiologyattheUniversityofArizona.Shehaspublishedover60papers,manyofwhichfocusonthefunctioningofcooperativeinteractionsinnature.Sheisalsoeditor-in-chiefofTheAmericanNaturalist,aleadinginternationaljournalinecologyandevolution.RobertF. LuschisexecutivedirectoroftheMcGuireCenterforEntrepreneurshipandJamesandPamelaMuzzyChairinEntrepreneurshipintheEllerCollegeofManagementattheUniversityofArizona.PreviouslyheservedasdeanoftheMichaelPriceCollegeofBusinessattheUniversityofOklahomaanddeanattheNeeleySchoolofBusinessatTCU.HisexpertiseisinmarketingstrategyandinnovationandisapasteditoroftheJournalofMarketing,theoldestscholarlyjournalinmarketing.280M.M.Marsetal.