Throughout the twentieth century, industry in the so-called developed economies was transformed from one that largely processed raw materials and conducted manufacturing to one that largely processes information and knowledge (Teece, 1998)[1]. As a consequence, the logic of competition has shifted from markets with decreasing returns to markets with increasing returns driven by positive feedback loops (Arthur, 1996). According to Arthur, in increasing-return markets, that which is ahead tends to stay ahead:``If knowledge-based companies are competing in winner-takes-most markets, then managing becomes redefined as series of quests for the next technological winner''. Bill Gates is not so much a wizard of technology, says Arthur,``but a wizard of precognition, of discerning the shape of the next game''. Arthur compares the new competitive game around emergent markets and technologies with casino gambling, where part of the game is to choose which games to play: We can imagine the top figures in high tech ± the Gateses and Gerstners and Groves of their industries ± as milling in a large casino. Over at this table, a game is starting called multimedia. Over at this one, a game called Web services. In the corner is electronic banking. There are many such tables. You sit at one. How much to play? you ask. Three billion, the croupier replies. Who'll be playing? We won't know until they show up. What are the rules? Those'll emerge as the game unfolds. What are my odds of winning? We can't say. Do you still want to play? (Arthur, 1996, p. 104).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeThe paper asks how leaders in organizations address complex situations or challenges where past experiences are no longer helpful or might pose an obstacle for success. The authors use the metaphor of the blank canvas to describe the work of entrepreneurs or innovators who connect to an emerging future possibility. Based on their research, the authors argue that social technologies allow actors in organizations to connect to an emerging future, and break through habitual patterns of the past.Design/methodology/approachUnderlying this paper, are action research projects in change management and organizational learning. While social science methods tend to be based on observational data, the founder of action research, Kurt Lewin, and his successors, including Ed Schein, Chris Argyris, Peter Senge, and Bill Torbert, claim that we have to use more than just observation (third‐person views) to get meaningful data about social reality. According to Bill Torbert organizational researchers need to access third‐, second‐, and first‐person knowledge – that is, observational data (third person), conversational data (second person) and experiential data (first person) that stem from participative action inquiry.FindingsThe paper concludes that organizational innovation and change processes cannot be outsourced. Profound innovation and change are only sustainable and successful when connected to the knowledge of the individuals involved, and when created by the people who will use them and be responsible for the results they produce.Originality/valueAny social action can originate from different inner places; every actor, an individual or a group, even an organization, can choose between different places from where their action originate. How we choose to attend to the world is the leverage we have to determine the outcome of our actions. The arts provide processes that allow actors in organizations to access this quality of knowledge and leverage it.