Topics for Bachelor & Master Theses

Meaningfulness has been defined as a genuinely positive subjective experience of existential significance at work (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003) which is associated with positive psychological and organizational outcomes (Bailey et al., 2018). I supervise qualitative and conceptual bachelor theses in the following research areas:

a)  Today, there's a growing desire among individuals to seek jobs that hold personal meaning while contributing positively to society. Achieving coherence between the self (“being”) and one’s work (“doing”) is a central motive for finding meaning and constructing a professional identity (Pratt et al., 2006). Research has shown that developing a legitimate professional identity is important to be perceived as competent by members of one’s profession (Bloom et al., 2020). However, for many (young) professionals, being successful and achieving legitimacy in one’s profession while creating what they consider a meaningful impact is a balancing act that involves multiple tensions.

b)  Most research on meaningful work has originated from the domain of positive psychology and primarily centered on the workplace as its focal point. Nonetheless, recent contributions from management and organization studies have adopted a more critical stance toward meaningfulness. Several recent studies have shed light on the potential dark sides of deeply meaningful work. Specifically, empirical studies have shown that experiencing excessive meaningfulness (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009, Florian et al., 2019, Oelberger, 2019) can lead to adverse consequences for the individual, „such as overwork, the acceptance of poor working conditions, cynicism, or negative attitudes towards others” (Bailey et al., 2019, p. 489). Some studies have also discovered the broader societal context as an important source of or detriment to constructing one’s work as meaningful (Florian et al., 2019; Kuhn et al., 2008; Pratt & Hedden, 2023). However, so far, we do not know enough about the role the societal context (e.g., in a certain profession) plays in individuals’ experience of meaningfulness.

References:

Bailey, C., Lips‐Wiersma, M., Madden, A., Yeoman, R., Thompson, M., & Chalofsky, N. (2019). The five paradoxes of meaningful work: Introduction to the special issue ‘Meaningful work: Prospects for the 21st century.’ Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 481–499.

Bloom, M., Colbert, A. E., & Nielsen, J. D. (2020). Stories of calling: How called professionals construct narrative identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 000183922094950.

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57.

Florian, M., Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2019). Struggling with meaningfulness when context shifts: Volunteer work in a German refugee shelter. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 589–616.

Kuhn, T., Golden, A. G., Jorgenson, J., Buzzanell, P. M., Berkelaar, B. L., Kisselburgh, L. G., Kleinman, S., & Cruz, D. (2008). Cultural discourses and discursive resources for meaning/ful work: Constructing and disrupting identities in contemporary capitalism. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 162–171.

Oelberger, C. R. (2019). The dark side of deeply meaningful work: Work‐relationship turmoil and the moderating role of occupational value homophily. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 558–588.

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler.

Pratt, M. G., & Hedden, L. N. (2023). Accounts and accountability: On organizational purpose, organizational identity, and meaningful work. Strategy Science, stsc.2023.0189.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262

There has been a resurgent interest from researchers in how organizations grapple with the big unknown: the future (Wenzel et al., 2020). Notably, scholars from sociology (e.g., Jens Beckert and Ann Mische) and science and technology studies in particular (e.g., Sheila Jasanoff and Harro van Lente) have developed valuable perspectives on how people in and around organizations imagine and make sense of possible futures to come. Recent research in management and organization studies has revisited the theme of “futures” providing intriguing new angles, including:

a)  The concept of future-making (Comi & Whyte, 2018; Wenzel, 2022) perpetuates a practice-based perspective on how organizations are “making sense of possible and probable futures and evaluating, negotiating and giving form to preferred ones” (Whyte et al., 2022, p. 2). This perspective emphasizes the role of artifacts and space in how organizations grapple with the future.

b)  Recent scholarship emphasizes the significance of considering cognitive distance when studying how futures are imagined and shaped in organizations (Augustine et al., 2019; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Rindova & Martins, 2022). These studies claim that near and distant futures are inherently distinct from one another as individuals evaluate them based on different criteria.

c)  Another emerging stream of research investigates the role of innovation in how organizations imagine and try to actively shape a desired future (e.g., Beckert, 2021; Garud et al., 2014; Kumaraswamy et al., 2018; Rindova & Martins, 2022). Promising studies in this realm focus on the strategic narratives that accompany innovation (Garud et al., 2014; Rindova & Martins, 2022) and processual perspectives on innovation (Garud et al., 2013). Studying innovation through lenses of 1) future-making or 2) cognitive distance might yield valuable insights.

I supervise qualitative and conceptual bachelor theses that seek to investigate research questions centered around the above themes.

References:

Augustine, G., Soderstrom, S., Milner, D., & Weber, K. (2019). Constructing a distant future: Imaginaries in geoengineering. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1930–1960.

Beckert, J. (2021). The firm as an engine of imagination: Organizational prospection and the making of economic futures. Organization Theory, 2(2), 263178772110057.

Comi, A., & Whyte, J. (2018). Future making and visual artefacts: An ethnographic study of a design project. Organization Studies, 39(8), 1055–1083.

Garud, R., Schildt, H. A., & Lant, T. K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25(5), 1479–1492.

Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775–819.

Kumaraswamy, A., Garud, R., & Ansari, S. (2018). Perspectives on disruptive innovations. Journal of Management Studies, 55(7), 1025–1042.

Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18.

Rindova, V. P., & Martins, L. L. (2022). Futurescapes: Imagination and temporal reorganization in the design of strategic narratives. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 200–224.

Wenzel, M. (2022). Taking the future more seriously: From corporate foresight to “future-making.” Academy of Management Perspectives, 36(2), 845–850.

Whyte, J., Comi, A., & Mosca, L. (2022). Making futures that matter: Future making, online working and organizing remotely. Organization Theory, 3(1), 263178772110691.

Entrepreneurship for 

Sustainable Development (ESD) 

and the Inner Development Goals (IDGs)

Entrepreneurship plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable development goals. Several research streams, consisting of social, environmental and sustainable entrepreneurship - to which we collectively refer to as entrepreneurship for sustainable development (ESD) - stress that enterprising individuals and ventures can discover, create, and exploit opportunities for sustainability with social and technological innovations leading to institutional and market transformations (Johnson & Schaltegger, 2019). The Inner Development Goals (IDGs) aim at enhancing individual qualities necessary for collective societal transformation (Håkansson, 2020) and are thus directly relevant to ESD (Robles, 2024). Entrepreneurs who embody the values and are equipped with the skills outlined by the IDGs, such as self-awareness, empathy, and resilience, are more likely to create solutions that contribute to long-term sustainability and positive societal outcomes (Kreiger, 2019). By fostering personal growth and ethical leadership, the IDGs align with ESD, providing a holistic approach to tackling global challenges. Yet, there is few research that links ESD to the IDGs and inner development in general (see Shir & Ryff, 2022 as an exception).

Thus, the goal of this thesis is to develop a conceptual framework that links the IDGs to ESD, outlining an agenda for future research.

Starting literature

Håkansson, S. (2020). The inner development goals: A personal framework for transformation. Inner Development Goals Initiative.

Johnson, M. P., & Schaltegger, S. (2020). Entrepreneurship for sustainable development: A review and multilevel causal mechanism framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(6), 1141-1173.

Kreiger, M. (2019). Inner development and entrepreneurship: The intersection of personal growth and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 35-48.

Robles, S. (2024). Toward sustainable futures: Enhancing inclusive transdisciplinary skills and inner development goals in sustainable entrepreneurship education. Journal of the International Council for Small Business, 1-13.

Shir, N., & Ryff, C. D. (2022). Entrepreneurship, self-organization, and eudaimonic well-being: A dynamic approach. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 46(6), 1658-1684.

Starting websites

innerdevelopmentgoals.org/about/resources/

Despite the importance of impact creation to impact entrepreneurship (research), standards for measuring an organization’s impact are underdeveloped on both theoretical and empirical grounds (Rawhouser et al., 2019). While in the literature absent, the practice of impact measurement has centered around the idea of impact areas (e.g. the BCorp Assessment or the Economy for the Common Good Matrix). The impact areas serve as a structure to assess and manage the impact of impactful ventures. Yet, they are not scientifically developed and vary strongly between different impact measurement standards. In a recent inductive study with twelve social enterprises, I identified six distinct impact areas. 

The idea for this thesis is to analyze the impact reports and websites of many (> 100) social enterprises in Germany to test the inductively developed framework of impact areas. 

Starting Literature: 

Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019). Social impact measurement: Current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 43(1), 82-115.

Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95.  

Starting websites

www.bcorporation.net/en-us/programs-and-tools/b-impact-assessment/

www.econgood.org

Frederic Penz

Collective action theory helps to understand how and why people coordinate their actions to achieve a common goal, often in situations where individual efforts might be insufficient or counterproductive (Ostrom, 2000). With its origins in social movement theory, it has traditionally focussed on explaining how the actions of groups of individuals can change institutions. Lately, it has found its way into the organization and management literature to explain how groups of organizations collectively create societal impact (e.g. Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022; Thomas & Ritala, 2022).

The idea for this thesis is to conduct a literature review on the use of collective action theory in leading organization and management journals.

Starting Literature: 

Agostini, M., & van Zomeren, M. (2021). Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 667.

Bailey, R. C., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2023). Enacting positive social change: A civic wealth creation stakeholder engagement framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(1), 66-90.

Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2022). Stakeholder governance: Solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 47(2), 214-236.

Lumpkin, G. T., & Bacq, S. (2019). Civic wealth creation: A new view of stakeholder engagement and societal impact. Academy of Management Perspectives, 33(4), 383-404.

Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137-158.

Thomas, L. D., & Ritala, P. (2022). Ecosystem legitimacy emergence: A collective action view. Journal of Management, 48(3), 515-541.

Frederic Penz