Reorienting our scholarship is neither necessary nor sufficient. Plan focus is an essential check on their framework getting coopted.

Of course, broadening the domain of application of management theory beyond its original concern with organizations and their management does not logically entail that management theory needs a great reset in terms of building new theory that is more fit for various alleged new challenges. And yet, a number of scholars have called for a radical change, perhaps even a reset, of management theory. Thus, one of the editors of the present Special Issue argues that we can view “politics, economy, science, health” as distinct “function systems” that change “from context to context and over time,” implying that “Management and organization theories, which are by default geared to economic and political issues, are thus likely to produce caricatures of their research domains that systematically exaggerate the significance of these two subsystems and underestimate the role of all others” (Roth, 2021a). Put differently, he calls for an improved understanding of interlevel relations (e.g., politics and business) and in general less “sealing off” between phenomenal domains (e.g., health and management).

Others argue that while business schools must further change their priorities and missions to “respond to the pace of change in technology, competition and social expectations” and that COVID-19 has provided impetus to rise to the call for business to lead social change” (Kelly & Dodgson, 2021), there isn’t necessarily a need to develop new theory. Along such lines, Williams and Whiteman’s (2021: 526) argue that “our focus must move away from a theory-fetish toward a more applied action orientation that contributes to theory-building but does not make that its main or singular aim” and that management research needs to focus more on “how our organizational and management theories can contribute concretely to helping humanity prepare for and respond to these shocks and build long-term societal resilience.” Delivering in these dimensions does not require the creation of new theory or a fundamental rethink of existing management theory. The body of thinking across the various social sciences is, we argue, sufficiently robust and adaptable to cope with the major management issues of the 21st century.

Thus, existing thinking on real options (Trigeorgis & Reuer, 2016), dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1998), strategic (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2001) and institutional (Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007) entrepreneurship, and business ecosystems (Jacobides, Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018) are examples of (macro management) research that is helpful for understanding how firms can deal with “grand challenges” such as poverty alleviation, inequality, environmental protection, and so on.3

These challenges are not only “grand,” but also “systemic” in the sense that dealing with them necessitates multiple complementary investments (as a in business ecosystem) brought about by institutional entrepreneurs exercising dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial judgment in response to the high levels of uncertainty implied in addressing the challenges.

Identifying, addressing and resolving societal “grand challenges” is inescapably tied up with politics. Calls for addressing these changes are articulated in the political process, both by constituents and political decision makers, and firms that seek to address the challenges will both be subject to political pressure and will seek to garner political and economic support from the political system. As we have argued, in this situation, the danger of a more cronyist economy is immanent. Firms are likely to use their involvement in dealing with “grand challenges” to build influence with politicians and bureaucrats and gain privileges that are not available to competitors. Research on cronyism is a major field of study (see references in Klein et al., 2021) which is well positioned to analyze the dangers of cronyism and to help us build institutions, policies, and practices to de-politicize the allocation of resources and the processes of innovation and entrepreneurship.

3. Conclusions

We applaud the increasing interest among management scholars for social, political, and cultural relevance. As Roth, 2021a, Roth, 2021b rightly notes, the system constituted by organizations and companies cannot be sealed off from technological, political, health-related, and cultural systems; these systems are interdependent and interacting. It should be uncontroversial to argue that management scholars have fundamental insight to offer regarding, for example, the working of decision-making processes in politics and in the government section, the drivers and hindrances of implementation of economic policy, the criteria used for assessing policy outcomes and initiatives, and much else (see Galdón et al., 2022).

We are confident that established thinking in management theory can address these aspects as the apply to our post-pandemic world and that no major reset of management thinking is required. In fact, we think a Great Reset of management theory is likely to do more harm than good, as it is hard to see how such thinking can avoid becoming a facile and opportunistic instrument in the hand of public policy makers. While indeed management theory should be responsive to major challenges and in general aim at helping decision-makers, there is always a risk of management theory becoming ad hoc justification of misguided decision making, instead of frameworks and tools for evaluating the relative merits of alternative policies and institutions. We are worried that calls for a great reset of management theory will end up with exactly such opportunistic, legitimizing “theory.”

Moreover, as we argue above, Great Reset thesis itself is fundamentally misguided, so there is no need for a management theory reset to accompany it. To be sure, our current, mostly market-based economy (call it “neoliberalism” or “the Washington Consensus” or “democratic capitalism”) is hardly perfect (Rajan and Zingales, 2005, Goldfajn et al., 2021, Monga, 2021). But it is far better than the economic system Great Reset proponents appear to have in mind, one in which the state plays a greater role in the economy; firms are evaluated by vague, complex, and politically defined performance criteria; and competitive forces that tend to direct resources toward more competent owners are replaced with socialized, politicized decision-making. Comparative institutional analysis suggests that these moves will exacerbate, not alleviate, concerns about the environment, inequality, stagnation, and so on.