BEYOND CONTROL: ECOLOGICAL REWILDING AND CULTURAL RESURGENCE AS MODELS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RENEWAL

BEYOND CONTROL: ECOLOGICAL REWILDING AND CULTURAL RESURGENCE AS MODELS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL RENEWAL Scott Matthew Brown; University of Puerto Rico; University of Granda; [email protected] Abstract: The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment documents that Indigenous-managed lands sustain ecosystems more effectively than state or corporate management across all biomes globally. Dominant management paradigms rest on control logics inherited from colonial and industrial ideologies that include hierarchical authority, resource extraction, and short-term profit maximization. We synthesize ecological rewilding (Monbiot) and Indigenous resurgence (Alfred) to develop "organizational rewilding"—a regenerative paradigm where removing hierarchical control enables self-organization toward complexity and resilience. Both frameworks indicate that domination degrades complex systems while autonomy enables regeneration, offering management theory pathways toward post-neoliberal management grounded in Indigenous wisdom and ecological science.Taiaiake Alfred's validation of this synthesis—confirming that resurgence theory successfully explains organizational extraction when applied beyond its original cultural domain—demonstrates that Indigenous knowledge systems function as complete analytical frameworks with universal explanatory capacity, not merely as cultural perspectives requiring Western theoretical supplementation. 1 | Page INTRODUCTION: THE ANTHROPOCENE MANAGEMENT CRISIS We examine how marginalized populations—specifically Indigenous peoples and frontline workers—reveal the inadequacy of dominant management theories built on assumptions that systematically exclude their experiences and knowledge. Indigenous communities possess sophisticated governance knowledge developed over millennia through relationship with land, yet management scholarship dismisses this expertise through what we term "professional colonialism" which is credentialed gatekeeping that privileges Western management education over traditional wisdom regardless of empirical outcomes. The IPBES (2019) finding that Indigenous-managed lands sustain ecosystems more effectively than state or corporate management demonstrates this exclusion's costs—management theory marginalizes precisely those populations whose knowledge proves superior. Similarly, frontline workers possess operational intelligence that hierarchical management suppresses: Buurtzorg's nurses achieved 40% cost reductions and superior patient outcomes when management layers were eliminated, revealing that workers management treats as resources requiring control actually hold knowledge hierarchies prevent from emerging (Laloux, 2014). By centering these marginalized perspectives rather than treating them as peripheral diversity considerations, we demonstrate that those management theories exclude—Indigenous peoples, frontline workers, women in undervalued care labor, neurodivergent individuals—who possess knowledge systems superior to Western management orthodoxy. Organizational rewilding provides a framework showing how releasing control and restoring autonomy enables marginalized workers to access and apply intelligence that domination paradigms systematically suppress, transforming organizations from extraction vehicles into regeneration catalysts. 2 | Page The synthesis of rewilding and resurgence theory presented here has been validated by Taiaiake Alfred (2005, 2009, 2023), whose foundational work on Indigenous resurgence provides this framework's theoretical anchor. Alfred confirmed that applying resurgence principles to organizational contexts is "very solid and applicable," and that the resulting analysis "will be a valuable tool" for Indigenous communities navigating extractive institutional relationships (T. Alfred, personal communication, December 2025). This validation matters methodologically: it demonstrates that Indigenous governance principles function as analytical frameworks with explanatory power extending beyond their original cultural contexts, precisely as Indigenous scholars have long argued. When resurgence theory successfully explains both cultural regeneration (Alfred's original domain) and organizational dysfunction (this paper's extension), it reveals that the logic of autonomy-versus-control operates universally across complex adaptive systems—ecosystems, cultures, and organizations alike. The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment documents humanity's most comprehensive failure: one million species face extinction within decades, 75% of terrestrial environments stand severely degraded, and ecosystem collapse accelerates globally (IPBES, 2019). Yet within this catastrophe lies a critical asymmetry. Nature declines significantly less rapidly on lands managed by Indigenous peoples than on lands under state or corporate control (IPBES, 2019, Chapter 2). This empirical finding validates what Indigenous scholars and ecological scientists have argued separately: domination-based management paradigms degrade complex systems, while autonomy-based approaches enable regeneration. For Indigenous lands, Alfred's (2005) resurgence theory demonstrates how cultural autonomy and traditional governance restore relationships colonialism severed, creating what IPBES terms the planet's most effective conservation strategy. For degraded non-Indigenous lands, Monbiot's 3 | Page (2013) rewilding framework shows how removing human control allows ecosystems to selforganize toward complexity and resilience. These apparently separate movements—one culturalpolitical, one ecological—share identical logic: trust systems' inherent intelligence, remove external domination, enable autonomous regeneration. This paper extends these insights to organizational management. If Indigenous resurgence and ecological rewilding demonstrate that complex systems flourish when freed from control, organizations—themselves complex adaptive systems—benefit from parallel transformation. We synthesize rewilding and resurgence theories to develop principles for "organizational rewilding": distributed authority replacing hierarchical control, stakeholder relationships replacing extractive transactions, long-term regeneration replacing short-term extraction. The alternative to management-as-domination already exists in nature and Indigenous practice. Management theory needs only to learn what ecosystems and cultures demonstrate: liberation enables flourishing control disrupts. Why do 85% of employees worldwide report feeling disengaged at work (Gallup, 2023)? Why are corporations destroying ecosystems despite prominent "sustainability" commitments (Boiral, Heras-Saizarbitoria, & Brotherton, 2019)? Why does a century of management expertise fail to produce organizations where humans and nature thrive together? The answer lies in management's foundational paradigm. Modern organizational theory rests on assumptions of control, extraction, and domination inherited from colonial plantation systems and industrial-era factories (Cooke, 2003; Banerjee & Linstead, 2001). Scientific management— the doctrine that workers are resources to be optimized through hierarchical control—emerged not from neutral efficiency principles but from specific historical contexts of domination: 4 | Page Frederick Taylor's time-motion studies translated factory workers into manipulable units; plantation overseers' supervision methods migrated into corporate hierarchies; colonial resource extraction logics became "human resource management" (Hassard, 2012; Cooke, 2003). This inheritance persists in that contemporary management education explicitly teaches students to "control" organizations, "manage" people, and "exploit" competitive advantages (Ghoshal, 2005). The results are devastating. For humans, work has become what David Graeber (2018) termed "bullshit jobs"—meaningless tasks generating widespread psychological distress, burnout, and what Monbiot (2013) calls "ecological boredom," a profound disconnection from life's vitality. The World Health Organization now recognizes workplace burnout as an occupational phenomenon requiring medical attention (WHO, 2019). For nature, corporate operations drive 60% of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation globally (WWF, 2020), even as firms enthusiastically publish sustainability reports celebrating marginal improvements (Boiral et al., 2019). The contradiction is not accidental but structural: management paradigms grounded in domination cannot generate regeneration. Yet alternatives exist at the margins of scholarly and practical attention. In ecological restoration, Monbiot's (2013) concept of "rewilding" demonstrates that removing human control allows degraded ecosystems to regenerate toward complexity, resilience, and abundance. His lyrical account of European forests recovering after wolves' return and Welsh coastlines teeming with marine life after fishing restrictions documents nature's capacity for self-organization when domination ceases. Rewilding rejects management-as-control: "Rewilding recognizes that nature consists not just of a collection of species but also of their ever-shifting relationships with each other and with the physical environment." (Monbiot, 2013, p. 7). The results contradict 5 | Page conventional management wisdom. Slovenia's rewilded forests support species absent for centuries; British waters now host returning whales and bluefin tuna (Monbiot, 2013). Ecosystems freed from managerial intervention become more productive, not less—a finding that challenges core management assumptions about the necessity of control. In Indigenous political theory, parallel insights emerge from what Taiaiake Alfred (2005) terms "resurgence"—the regeneration of Indigenous cultures through removal of colonial control and restoration of traditional governance, languages, and land relationships. Alfred's Wasáse framework articulates how communities systematically degraded under colonial management regenerate when permitted cultural autonomy and sovereignty. Like rewilding, resurgence demonstrates that domination disrupts while liberation enables flourishing because "Outright assaults and insidious undermining have brought us to the situation we face today, when the destruction of our peoples is nearly complete. Yet resurgence and regeneration constitute a way to power-surge against the empire with integrity." (Alfred, 2005, p. 24). Indigenous governance systems emphasizing consensus, long-term thinking, and reciprocal relationships with land sustained communities for millennia before colonial interruption (Alfred, 2009). Resurgence theory shows these systems can regenerate when colonial management withdraws. These frameworks converge on a radical proposition: the control paradigm central to modern management is the problem, not the solution. Both rewilding and resurgence demonstrate that complex systems—whether ecosystems or cultures—possess inherent capacities for selforganization that management-as-domination disrupts. Both document how removing control mechanisms allows regeneration toward greater complexity, resilience, and sustainability. Both reject short-term extraction in favor of long-term relationships. Both trust inherent intelligence— of ecosystems, of communities—rather than imposing external management expertise. 6 | Page We argue that organizations face parallel degradation under control-oriented management paradigms and benefit from analogous transformation. Just as Monbiot (2013) documents "ecological boredom" in landscapes reduced to simplified monocultures, organizations exhibit what we term "organizational boredom"—the flattening of human potential into narrow job descriptions, the reduction of stakeholder relationships to transactional exchanges, the suppression of worker intelligence beneath managerial hierarchy. Just as Alfred (2005) traces cultural degradation to colonial control, we trace organizational dysfunction to management paradigms inherited from those same colonial systems. The solution is not refined control but paradigm transformation: organizational rewilding through distributed autonomy, stakeholder regeneration through relationship restoration, and management philosophy grounded in regeneration rather than domination. We synthesize ecological rewilding theory (Monbiot, 2013; Soulé & Noss, 1998) with Indigenous resurgence theory (Alfred, 2005; Simpson, 2011) to develop principles for postneoliberal management. Through comparative analysis across ecological, cultural, and organizational domains, we demonstrate that domination-based paradigms generate remarkably similar pathologies while regeneration-based alternatives produce parallel benefits. We develop the concept of "organizational rewilding" as removal of hierarchical control mechanisms paired with cultivation of conditions enabling self-organization, stakeholder relationship restoration, and long-term regenerative capacity. Our contribution is threefold. Theoretically, we bridge ecology, Indigenous studies, and management theory to demonstrate how seemingly distinct domains manifest identical domination/regeneration dynamics. Practically, we offer principles for organizational transformation grounded in proven ecological and cultural restoration successes rather than 7 | Page abstract management ideals. Ethically, we challenge management education to abandon our colonial-industrial inheritance and embrace frameworks Indigenous peoples and ecological systems demonstrate as more viable emphasizing trust over control, relationships over transactions, regeneration over extraction, and long-term sustainability over short-term profit. As Monbiot (2013, p. 10) writes of rewilding: "The fantasy entertained by some of the primitives I have met, of returning to a hunter-gather economy, would first require the elimination of almost all human beings. For the same reason I do not think that extensive rewilding should take place on productive land. It is better deployed in the places-especially in the uplands-in which production is so low that farming continues only as a result of the taxpayer’s generosity." The same holds for organizations. Management theory can continue refining control mechanisms, or it can learn from nature and Indigenous wisdom by releasing control, restoring relationships, and trusting regeneration. We argue for the latter, documenting how rewilding and resurgence offer pathways toward organizations where humans and nature flourish together. 8 | Page THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The Domination Paradigm in Management Modern management theory emerged from specific historical contexts of domination whose logics persist in contemporary organizational practice. Frederick Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management (1911) explicitly conceived workers as biological machines requiring external control to achieve productivity. His time-motion studies fragmented labor into measurable units amenable to managerial optimization, reducing human intelligence to programmable routines (Braverman, 1974). Taylor wrote that the system must be first before the individual (Taylor, 1911)—a declaration subordinating human agency to managerial control that became management education's foundational premise. This control logic intensified under neoliberal management's shareholder primacy doctrine. Friedman's (1970) assertion that corporations' sole social responsibility is owner profit maximization established extractive relationships with workers, communities, and ecosystems as fiduciary duty. Contemporary management reduces complex stakeholder relationships to financial metrics: employees become "human capital" measured by productivity per dollar; nature becomes "natural capital" valued only for extraction potential; communities become "market segments" targeted for consumption (Banerjee, 2008). Short-term financial returns trump long-term ecosystem health, worker wellbeing, or community sustainability—not as unfortunate side effects but as deliberate strategic orientation (Ghoshal, 2005). These management paradigms trace directly to colonial plantation systems and industrial resource extraction (Cooke, 2003). Slave plantation overseers' surveillance methods migrated into factory supervision; colonial administrators' "divide and rule" tactics became organizational hierarchy; Indigenous land dispossession logics reappeared as worker alienation from production 15 | Page restoration rather than extracting "insights" for managerial appropriation—precisely organizational rewilding's "release control" principle applied to epistemology. 16 | Page COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: REWILDING = RESURGENCE The convergence between ecological rewilding and Indigenous resurgence reveals a fundamental pattern: domination-based paradigms generate remarkably similar pathologies across domains, while regeneration-based alternatives produce parallel benefits. Table 1 synthesizes these dynamics, demonstrating that what appears as separate conservation and decolonization movements actually represents identical frameworks applied to different systems. TABLE 1 PARALLEL PRINCIPLES ACROSS REWILDING, RESURGENCE, AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY Principle Rewilding (Ecology) Resurgence (Culture) Organizations (Proposed) Problem Human domination of nature Colonial domination Management domination Root Cause Industrial control Colonialism Scientific management Solution Remove control mechanisms Restore autonomy Distribute authority Mechanism Natural regeneration Cultural regeneration Organizational regeneration Agency Ecosystem intelligence Indigenous knowledge Worker/stakeholder intelligence Relationships Trophic cascades Kinship networks Stakeholder networks Timeframe Ecological succession Seven Generations Long-term value creation Goal Thriving ecosystems Sovereign communities Flourishing organizations Note. This table synthesizes parallel dynamics across ecological rewilding, Indigenous resurgence, and proposed organizational transformation. The convergence demonstrates that domination-based paradigms generate similar pathologies across domains, while regenerationbased alternatives produce parallel benefits. Same framework, different domains. These parallels operate at multiple levels. Structurally, both rewilding and resurgence identify external control as the fundamental problem disrupting system integrity. Monbiot's (2013) observation that management disrupts natural processes mirrors Alfred's (2005) argument that colonial control degrades cultures—identical claims about different systems. Both recognize that 17 | Page domination, however well-intentioned, prevents systems from accessing inherent regenerative capacities. Mechanistically, both trust systems' autonomous intelligence over external expertise. Rewilding demonstrates that ecosystems self-organize toward complexity when freed from management; Yellowstone's wolves generated cascading transformations no management plan could design (Ripple & Beschta, 2012). Resurgence shows communities self-organize culturally when freed from colonial control; language revitalization and governance restoration emerge from Indigenous agency, not external programming (Alfred, 2023). Both reject the premise that superior external knowledge should override local intelligence. The temporal dimension reveals another convergence. Rewilding operates on ecological succession timescales, trusting that processes unfolding over decades or centuries generate outcomes exceeding short-term management interventions (Carver et al., 2021). Resurgence similarly emphasizes intergenerational timeframes: cultural regeneration requires patience across generations, not quarterly results (Alfred, 2005). Both stand opposed to management paradigms demanding immediate measurable outcomes. Relationally, both prioritize network complexity over hierarchical control. Rewilding's trophic cascades demonstrate how apex predators' restoration creates network effects throughout ecosystems—wolves transform rivers by changing elk behavior (Ripple & Beschta, 2012). Resurgence's kinship networks similarly generate cascading cultural effects—ceremony restoration revitalizes language, which strengthens governance, which reconnects communities to land (Alfred, 2009). Neither operates through top-down command but through relationship cultivation. 18 | Page Most fundamentally, both frameworks share epistemological commitments. They assert that complex adaptive systems—whether ecosystems or cultures—possess capacities for selforganization, adaptation, and regeneration that external control inevitably disrupts. Carver et al. (2025, p. 629) write that "The literature also reflects interdisciplinary engagement with the remaining uncertainties inherent in rewilding, which has driven further engagement with its human dimensions and considerations for how it is understood in different cultural, geographic, or disciplinary contexts." Alfred (2005, p. 89) argues Indigenous cultures "In the context of colonialism and the Okwehonwe struggle, proactive and protective actions are the elements of a resurgence." because relationships developed autonomously over millennia exceed imposed colonial structures. Both privilege autonomous development over external imposition. This convergence suggests organizations face identical dynamics. If ecosystems flourish when freed from management control, if cultures regenerate when released from colonial domination, organizations might similarly thrive through distributed authority rather than hierarchical control. The question becomes: can management theory learn what ecology and Indigenous wisdom demonstrate—that trusting systems' intelligence enables flourishing control disrupts? 19 | Page ORGANIZATIONAL REWILDING: A REGENERATIVE FRAMEWORK If ecosystems regenerate when freed from management control and cultures flourish when released from colonial domination, organizations might similarly thrive through what we term "organizational rewilding": the systematic removal of control-based management in favor of conditions enabling self-organization, stakeholder relationship restoration, and regenerative capacity development. Core Principles Release Control. Organizational rewilding's first principle mirrors ecological and cultural dynamics that reducing hierarchical control enables system intelligence to emerge. Just as Monbiot (2013) documents ecosystems developing trophic complexity when management withdraws, and Alfred (2005) shows communities generating governance sophistication through autonomy, organizations can access worker and stakeholder intelligence currently suppressed beneath managerial hierarchy. Practically, this requires flattening organizational hierarchies that concentrate decision-making authority at executive levels while reducing frontline workers to task executors. As Carver et al. (2021) argue that rewilding must trust ecosystem processes rather than imposing predetermined outcomes, organizational rewilding trusts workers closest to operations possess superior knowledge about improving processes than distant managers. Buurtzorg, the Dutch nursing organization, demonstrates this principle: eliminating middle management and creating selfmanaging teams of 10-12 nurses reduced costs 40% while improving patient outcomes and employee satisfaction (Laloux, 2014). The mechanism parallels trophic rewilding—removing management control allowed frontline intelligence to self-organize toward superior performance. 20 | Page Micromanagement represents the organizational equivalent of intensive ecosystem management: constant intervention preventing systems from developing autonomous capacity. Holacracy's distributed authority model, where teams self-organize around evolving purposes rather than fixed job descriptions, applies rewilding's "process over outcome" logic to organizations (Robertson, 2015). Like European bison creating landscape heterogeneity through autonomous grazing (Cromsigt et al., 2018), workers granted autonomy generate organizational complexity exceeding managerial design. Restore Relationships. Rewilding prioritizes relationship restoration over species reintroduction whereas resurgence emphasizes kinship networks over political recognition; organizational rewilding must similarly rebuild stakeholder relationships degraded under shareholder primacy (Alfred, 2009; Carver et al., 2021). Friedman's (1970) doctrine that corporations serve only shareholders as owners justified extractive relationships with workers (reduced to "human resources"), communities (externalities to minimize), and ecosystems (inputs to exploit). Regenerative alternatives recognize these as partnerships requiring long-term cultivation. Patagonia exemplifies stakeholder relationship restoration. By prioritizing environmental health alongside profit—donating 1% of sales to conservation, using recycled materials, repairing products rather than encouraging replacement—the company builds relationships with ecosystems, communities, and customers generating long-term resilience (Chouinard, 2016). This parallels IPBES (2019) findings that Indigenous-managed lands exhibit slower biodiversity decline because management prioritizes relationship maintenance over extraction maximization. 21 | Page Community embeddedness restores what Polanyi (1944) termed the economy's social embedding before market fundamentalism disembedded economic transactions from community relationships. Mondragón Cooperative's structure—worker ownership, community investment, cooperative network—creates stakeholder relationships resembling Alfred's (2005) kinship networks more than corporate hierarchies. Like resurgence's emphasis on intergenerational relationships, cooperative structures prioritize long-term community flourishing over quarterly returns. Revitalize Traditional Knowledge. Indigenous business practices developed over millennia demonstrate sustainable economic relationships conventional management ignores. The Seventh Generation Principle—evaluating decisions by impacts seven generations forward—provides temporal framework management's quarterly earnings obsession (Alfred, 2023). Gift economics, where generosity creates reciprocal obligations rather than transactional exchanges, offers alternatives to extractive capitalism (Vaughan, 2007). Place-based knowledge recognizing that effective practices emerge from long-term relationships with specific locations challenges management's assumption that best practices transfer universally. Craft and artisan wisdom similarly represents knowledge systems scientific management deliberately destroyed. Taylor's (1911) fragmentation of skilled trades into programmable tasks aimed to transfer knowledge from workers to management, enabling worker replaceability. Organizational rewilding reverses this: apprenticeship models, intergenerational knowledge transmission, and craft guild structures restore traditional knowledge systems generating quality exceeding industrial production (Sennett, 2008). This parallels rewilding's recognition that traditional Indigenous fire management produces outcomes scientific forestry cannot achieve (Kimmerer, 2013). 22 | Page Embrace Regeneration. Circular economy principles apply rewilding's "natural cycles" logic to material flows where waste becomes input, products become services, and extraction gives way to regeneration (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015). Interface's "Mission Zero" demonstrates organizational commitment to ecological restoration—the carpet manufacturer now sources recycled materials, operates carbon-neutral facilities, and invests in ecosystem restoration (Anderson, 2009). This mirrors Monbiot's (2013) observation that rewilded ecosystems don't simply halt degradation but actively regenerate complexity. Community investment through profit-sharing, local hiring, and community development resembles resurgence's emphasis on cultural renewal. When REI returns 70% of profits to members through dividends and invests in outdoor access programs, it practices regenerative economics strengthening communities rather than extracting wealth (Cooperative Economics Alliance, 2020). Cultural renewal—supporting worker education, celebrating diverse knowledge systems, enabling creative expression—regenerates human capacity just as rewilding regenerates ecosystem capacity. Practical Applications Governance structures operationalize these principles through self-managing teams (Buurtzorg), holacracy (Robertson, 2015), cooperative ownership (Mondragón), and Indigenous governance integration. The Heiltsuk First Nation's herring management combines Western science with traditional ecological knowledge, demonstrating how Indigenous governance models produce superior outcomes (von der Porten & de Loë, 2013). Decision-making processes shift from hierarchical command to consensus-building, distributed authority, meaningful stakeholder consultation, and seven-generation thinking. 23 | Page Consensus doesn't require unanimity but ensures all voices shape decisions—resembling ecosystem processes where multiple species interactions generate outcomes no single species controls (Carver et al., 2021). Resource management adopts circular flows (eliminating waste concepts), regenerative practices (leaving systems healthier than found), commons management (shared stewardship replacing private extraction), and gift economics (generosity over transaction). Lorimer et al.'s (2015) observation that rewilding creates "new natures" rather than restoring historical baselines suggests organizations should embrace emergent possibilities rather than managing toward predetermined states. Organizational culture prioritizes trust over control (releasing rather than constraining capacity), relationships over transactions (long-term partnerships), regeneration over extraction (leaving stakeholders strengthened). As Alfred (2005, p. 200) writes: "To be sure, most of our people are in a state of disbelief or misapprehension, not yet convinced of the need for change. How do we convince them of the need for struggle as the way out of the alienation, pain, and discord that defines so many lives?" Organizational rewilding recovers relationships scientific management severed: workers and intelligence, organizations and communities, businesses and ecosystems. The framework doesn't eliminate structure but transforms its purpose from controlling workers to enabling flourishing, from extracting value to generating regeneration, and from domination to partnership. Like rewilding's shift from "managing nature" to "enabling natural processes," organizational rewilding shifts from "managing workers" to "enabling organizational intelligence." 24 | Page CASE STUDIES: ORGANIZATIONAL REWILDING IN PRACTICE Four organizations demonstrate how rewilding and resurgence principles translate into viable organizational models, each exhibiting core characteristics we identify: releasing hierarchical control, restoring stakeholder relationships, revitalizing traditional knowledge, and embracing regenerative practices. Patagonia: Environmental Resurgence as Business Model Patagonia represents organizational commitment to ecological regeneration challenging shareholder primacy fundamentalism. Founder Yvon Chouinard's (2016) articulation—"Earth is now our only shareholder"—enacted through the company's 2022 ownership transfer to environmental trusts exemplifies stakeholder relationship restoration. Rather than maximizing extraction for investor returns, Patagonia's structure channels all profits toward ecosystem protection, embodying what Alfred (2005) terms regeneration over recognition: the company doesn't seek sustainability awards but actively funds rewilding projects globally. The operational model demonstrates long-term thinking characteristic of both rewilding's ecological succession timeframes and resurgence's intergenerational focus. Patagonia's Worn Wear program—repairing products rather than encouraging replacement—directly opposes planned obsolescence driving consumer capitalism. This mirrors rewilding's patience: just as Yellowstone's ecosystem required decades to regenerate after wolf reintroduction (Ripple & Beschta, 2012), Patagonia invests in multi-decade relationships with suppliers, communities, and ecosystems rather than quarterly profit maximization. 31 | Page generation impacts—replaced federal agencies' annual planning cycles, shifting temporal orientation from short-term allocation battles to long-term ecosystem regeneration. Where Bourland represented federal authority eliminating tribal jurisdiction, Klamath represented federal authority acknowledging the superiority of collaborative governance incorporating Indigenous knowledge (Royster et al., 2018). Results validated the rewilding framework. Salmon populations began recovering as collaborative management implemented habitat restoration informed by tribal ecological knowledge. Water allocation conflicts decreased as relationship-based governance built trust replacing adversarial litigation. The agreement's dam removal provisions—the largest in U.S. history—exemplified releasing control: rather than managing degraded river systems indefinitely (or building new dams that eliminate tribal authority), participants chose removing infrastructure and trusting natural regeneration processes. The contrast with Bourland's logic could not be sharper: where the 1993 Court saw dam construction as justification for ending tribal jurisdiction, the 2010 agreements saw dam removal as essential to regenerating both ecosystems and collaborative sovereignty. However, the case also illuminates limitations and boundary conditions that validate this paper's discussion of power resistance. Co-management required decades to negotiate, demonstrating transition challenges. Power resistance remained significant—some irrigation districts and federal agency personnel resisted sharing authority, echoing the extractive mindset Bourland encoded into law. Most tellingly, the agreements collapsed in 2020 when colonial agricultural interests withdrew, revealing that entrenched economic power can block transformation even when ecological evidence validates alternative approaches. The 2020 collapse occurred when drought conditions forced zero allocation decisions, revealing that collaborative governance— 32 | Page while improving outcomes during normal conditions—remained vulnerable when water scarcity required choosing between agricultural and ecological interests. Agricultural districts withdrew rather than accept restrictions, demonstrating that entrenched economic power can reimpose control paradigms even after collaborative governance proves ecologically superior. The Bourland-to-Klamath trajectory thus remains incomplete where legal and collaborative frameworks enable Indigenous co-management to exist, but dominant colonial economic interests retain capacity to reimpose control paradigms. Nevertheless, the Klamath Basin experience demonstrates organizational rewilding's viability in natural resource governance—and how far federal-tribal relations have shifted from the dispossession logic Bourland represented. Federal agencies releasing hierarchical control, tribes restoring traditional knowledge systems, stakeholders rebuilding relationships degraded through colonial management, and participants embracing long-term regeneration over short-term extraction—these principles generated measurable improvements in ecosystem health and governance legitimacy during the agreements' operation. The case proves that natural resource management, like business organizations, benefits when domination-based paradigms yield to Indigenous wisdom and collaborative structures trusting stakeholder intelligence over external control. That this transformation occurred within two decades of Bourland demonstrates that paradigm shifts, while facing fierce resistance, remain possible (Royster et al., 2018). Cultural Commodification and Worker Exploitation The Mormon Church owned Polynesian Cultural Center demonstrates how control paradigms marginalize workers intersectionally. Pacific Islander students—needing tuition money for BYUHawaii—work as cultural performers and tour guides, earning minimum wage while 33 | Page management extracts value through multiple channels through student tuition payments, mandatory religious tithing (10% of wages), and tourist ticket revenue ($50-229 per guest). Workers report that management's stated values of 'aloha and ohana' (love and family) contradict actual practices of favoritism, cultural appropriation, and exploitation. One worker testified: 'I felt exploited—expected to give my best every day, yet not recognized or rewarded for my efforts. That was the moment the spirit of aloha vanished for me' (Reddit, r/byuhawaii, 2024). Most critically, Indigenous workers must teach Mormon missionary narratives—claiming Polynesians descended from Book of Mormon characters—rather than scientifically accurate Indigenous history, exemplifying epistemic violence where colonizer mythology replaces Indigenous knowledge even when performed by Indigenous peoples themselves. The economic structure mirrors extractive capitalism: a CEO earning $300,000 while student workers receive minimum wage, missionary couples provide unpaid labor while financing their own expenses, and the same institution collects revenue as employer, landlord, and university. This case illustrates how management paradigms simultaneously extract economic value, cultural knowledge, and emotional labor from multiply-marginalized workers while suppressing their agency and authentic knowledge. Expanding the Indigenous and Decolonial Scholarly Foundation Our synthesis of rewilding and resurgence theory primarily engages Taiaiake Alfred's work, but the broader Indigenous and decolonial scholarly tradition offers rich additional foundations for organizational rewilding principles. Readers seeking deeper engagement should explore several complementary perspectives. 34 | Page Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Science: Cajete's (2000) Native Science demonstrates that Indigenous peoples developed sophisticated scientific methodologies over millennia, grounded in "natural laws of interdependence" that parallel this paper's emphasis on relationship-based governance and ecosystem intelligence. His framework shows how Indigenous science operates through participatory observation, metaphorical modeling, and cyclical rather than linear causation—epistemologies that organizational rewilding's rejection of reductionist management mirrors. Similarly, Deloria's (1995) Red Earth, White Lies challenges Western scientific authority's claims to exclusive rationality, arguing that Indigenous empirical knowledge often exceeds Western science in accuracy and scope. These works ground this paper's claim that traditional ecological knowledge produces superior outcomes not through romantic primitivism but through rigorous, place-based, intergenerational observation. Legal and Governance Alternatives: Borrows' (2010) Drawing Out Law articulates how Indigenous legal traditions encode governance principles in stories, ceremonies, and land relationships rather than written codes—a framework relevant to organizational rewilding's emphasis on emergent rather than prescribed structures. His Anishinaabe legal philosophy demonstrates consensus-based decision-making and restorative rather than punitive approaches that cooperative governance models like Mondragón partially reflect. Williams' (2009) Like a Loaded Weapon provides essential legal context for understanding how Supreme Court decisions like Bourland systematically dispossess Indigenous sovereignty, complementing this paper's analysis of federal-tribal resource conflicts. Decolonization as Framework: Coulthard's (2014) Red Skin, White Masks extends Alfred's resurgence theory by critiquing "politics of recognition"—the framework demanding Indigenous peoples seek inclusion in settler institutions rather than restoring autonomous 35 | Page governance. His argument that decolonization requires land return and relationship restoration, not symbolic acknowledgment, sharpens this paper's distinction between genuine organizational transformation and superficial diversity initiatives. Tuhiwai Smith's (2012) Decolonizing Methodologies challenges Western research paradigms' extractive relationships with Indigenous communities, offering methodological principles—collective benefit, cultural protocols, community control—that parallel organizational rewilding's stakeholder relationship restoration. Dutt et al.'s (2025) Decolonizing Economics demonstrates how economic theory itself requires decolonization, providing theoretical grounding for this paper's critique of extractive capitalism and discussion of gift economics and commons management. These scholars collectively demonstrate that Indigenous knowledge systems offer not peripheral "alternative perspectives" but sophisticated intellectual traditions capable of transforming management theory fundamentally. Organizational rewilding's viability rests on recognizing Indigenous and decolonial scholarship as central theoretical foundations, not supplementary diversity considerations. 36 | Page IMPLICATIONS For Management Theory This synthesis demands fundamental paradigm transformation in management scholarship. The domination-control framework inherited from Taylor (1911) and institutionalized through neoliberal shareholder primacy (Friedman, 1970) must yield to regeneration-trust paradigms demonstrated viable by rewilding and resurgence. Management education currently teaches students to "control" organizations, "manage" people, and "exploit" advantages—language revealing colonial-extractive inheritance (Ghoshal, 2005). Organizational rewilding reframes management's purpose: from controlling workers to enabling flourishing, from extracting value to generating regeneration, from domination to partnership. Indigenous knowledge integration becomes essential rather than peripheral. If IPBES (2019) documents that Indigenous-managed lands sustain ecosystems more effectively than state or corporate management, management theory must engage seriously with Indigenous governance systems, economic models, and knowledge transmission practices. This requires more than superficial "diversity and inclusion" initiatives—it demands recognizing that Indigenous peoples possess sophisticated management knowledge Western academia systematically excludes (Alfred, 2023). Business schools teaching Seventh Generation Principle alongside shareholder value maximization would transform strategic thinking fundamentally. Ecological thinking applied to organizations recognizes them as complex adaptive systems resembling ecosystems more than machines. This shifts analysis from mechanical efficiency optimization to ecosystem health cultivation: complexity as strength not problem, diversity as resilience generator, relationships as value sources, and long-term succession as strategic orientation (Carver et al., 2025). Post-neoliberal frameworks grounded in regeneration rather 37 | Page than extraction provide alternatives to capitalism's false choice between profitability and sustainability, demonstrating through cases like Patagonia and Mondragón that regenerative practices generate prosperity precisely because they strengthen rather than degrade stakeholder relationships. For Practice Implementation requires specific principles translating theory into action. Organizations begin by identifying control mechanisms suppressing worker intelligence—excessive approval hierarchies, micromanagement practices, rigid job descriptions—and systematically removing them while building support structures enabling self-organization. Buurtzorg's model provides a template to eliminate middle management, create small autonomous teams, provide coaching not control, and trust frontline intelligence (Laloux, 2014). Metrics expansion beyond profit becomes essential. Traditional financial measures miss organizational health indicators, rewilding and resurgence priority: stakeholder relationship quality, ecosystem impact, worker flourishing, community benefit, cultural vitality, knowledge transmission effectiveness, and long-term regenerative capacity. The Global Reporting Initiative and B Corporation certification offer existing frameworks, though true organizational rewilding requires developing context-specific indicators reflecting each organization's unique stakeholder ecology (Carver et al., 2021). Stakeholder engagement models shift from transactional consultation to partnership cultivation. This means moving beyond token Indigenous consultation toward genuine co-governance, replacing customer surveys with long-term relationship building, and transforming worker "engagement" programs into authentic democratic participation. Interface's stakeholder councils 38 | Page where community members, workers, and ecosystem advocates jointly shape strategy exemplify this approach (Anderson, 2009). Regenerative business design applies circular economy principles (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2015) while extending beyond material flows to relationship cycles, knowledge systems, and cultural practices. Design questions shift from "How do we minimize harm?" to "How do we actively regenerate ecosystems, strengthen communities, and enable flourishing?" This transforms businesses from extraction vehicles into regeneration catalysts—the shift Monbiot (2013) documents in rewilded ecosystems that don't merely halt degradation but actively restore complexity. For Society Organizational rewilding's societal implications extend beyond individual firms to economic system transformation. If significant business sectors adopted regenerative principles, emergent outcomes would reshape economies fundamentally. Sustainable economies would emerge not through regulation forcing compliance but through organizations recognizing that regeneration generates prosperity more reliably than extraction—precisely IPBES's (2019) finding that Indigenous management sustains productivity long-term while extractive management depletes resources. Decolonized business means more than diversity hiring or supply chain ethics—it requires dismantling colonial economic structures, prioritizing extraction and embracing Indigenous economic alternatives like gift economics, commons management, and relationship-based exchange (Vaughan, 2007). When businesses prioritize seven-generation impacts over quarterly 39 | Page returns, adopt consensus governance over hierarchical control, and embed in communities rather than exploiting them, they practice economic decolonization materially. Ecological restoration through business becomes viable when organizations adopt rewilding principles. Companies like Patagonia funding ecosystem restoration and Interface operating carbon-negative demonstrate how businesses can become regeneration agents rather than degradation drivers. At scale, this transforms capitalism's relationship with nature from antagonistic to symbiotic—businesses thriving because ecosystems flourish, not despite their protection. Democratic workplaces practicing substantive worker participation, cooperative ownership, and distributed authority create everyday democracy most citizens experience more intimately than electoral politics. Mondragón's 80,000 worker-owners practicing one-person-one-vote governance represents democracy at scale, demonstrating alternatives to both corporate autocracy and state bureaucracy (Kasmir, 1996). This political transformation—from workplace authoritarianism to democratic self-governance—may prove organizational rewilding's most radical societal contribution. 40 | Page DISCUSSION Limitations Organizational rewilding faces genuine constraints requiring honest acknowledgment. Not all organizations can fully rewild—nuclear power plants require hierarchical safety protocols, surgical teams need clear authority structures, and emergency services demand rapid command capacity. The framework doesn't advocate eliminating all control but rather distinguishing contexts where control genuinely serves system health from contexts where it merely serves managerial authority. Some control remains necessary even in highly autonomous organizations. Safety regulations, ethical boundaries, legal compliance, and stakeholder protection require organizational structures preventing harm. The question becomes: What's the minimum control necessary for legitimate purposes versus the maximum autonomy enabling flourishing? Buurtzorg maintains professional nursing standards and legal compliance while eliminating middle management—demonstrating that essential control and substantial autonomy coexist (Laloux, 2014). Transition challenges prove substantial. Organizations cannot instantly transform from hierarchical control to distributed autonomy without disruption, resistance, and failure risks. Managers facing obsolescence resist; workers conditioned to obedience struggle with autonomy; shareholders demand familiar metrics; regulators require traditional structures. Successful transitions, like Buurtzorg's gradual team creation or Patagonia's multi-decade evolution, require patience matching rewilding's ecological succession timeframes (Monbiot, 2013). Power resistance represents perhaps the most significant limitation. Those benefiting from current hierarchies—executives, shareholders, managerial classes—possess both incentive and 47 | Page organizational structures would test whether rewilding's benefits extend across neurological diversity. Intersectional analysis thus reveals organizational rewilding's promise and limitations. The framework addresses structural domination rather than single-axis discrimination, potentially benefiting workers experiencing compounded marginalization. Yet without explicit attention to how race, class, gender, disability, and other dimensions interact, distributed authority risks reproducing hierarchies in new forms. As Crenshaw (1991) demonstrated, well-intentioned policies claiming neutrality often serve dominant groups' interests when intersectional dynamics remain unexamined. Organizational rewilding must learn this lesson: releasing control benefits marginalized workers only when transformation explicitly centers those experiencing the most severe intersectional subordination and measures success by their liberation, not abstract autonomy increases averaged across privileged and marginalized workers alike. Future Research Empirical testing remains essential. This paper synthesizes theory and case examples but lacks systematic quantitative analysis of organizational rewilding's outcomes. Future research should compare financial performance, worker wellbeing, stakeholder satisfaction, ecosystem impact, and long-term sustainability across organizations exhibiting varying autonomy levels, testing whether releasing control actually generates claimed benefits. Regression discontinuity designs exploiting policy changes enabling cooperative formation or natural experiments where economic crises force organizational restructuring could provide causal evidence. Longitudinal studies tracking organizations through rewilding transitions would illuminate transformation processes, identify success factors, document failure modes, and reveal temporal 48 | Page dynamics. How long does transition require? What sequences prove effective? When do organizations regress toward hierarchy? What conditions enable sustained autonomy? Following cohorts over decades—matching rewilding's ecological succession timeframes—would generate insights cross-sectional research misses. Cross-cultural applications testing whether organizational rewilding principles transfer across cultural contexts would validate or limit generalizability claims. Does distributed authority function similarly in individualistic versus collectivist cultures? Do Indigenous governance models transfer to non-Indigenous contexts? How do different cultural orientations toward hierarchy, autonomy, and authority shape rewilding feasibility? Comparative research across cultural contexts would refine understanding of universal principles versus culturally-specific applications. Sector-specific analysis examining rewilding's viability across industries—manufacturing versus services, high-reliability versus routine operations, physical versus digital production—would identify boundary conditions and optimal applications. Some sectors may prove more amenable to radical autonomy while others require modified approaches. Understanding these variations would enable more precise practitioner guidance than universal prescriptions allow. 49 | Page CONCLUSION The existential management crisis IPBES (2019) documents—one million species facing extinction, 75% of terrestrial environments degraded, ecosystem collapse accelerating—traces to paradigms treating workers as machines, nature as externality, and control as management's essence. These paradigms inherited from colonial plantations and Taylorist factories generated productivity in specific historical contexts but now drive civilizational-scale dysfunction including widespread worker alienation, ecosystem destruction, democratic erosion, and community fragmentation. The Rehnquist Court's systematic erosion of tribal criminal jurisdiction exemplifies how legal frameworks institutionalize domination over marginalized populations. In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), the Supreme Court held that tribes lack criminal jurisdiction over nonIndians committing crimes on reservations—creating what Deer (2015) terms "a jurisdictional maze" enabling rape and pedophilic sexual violence against Indigenous women with total impunity. Non-Indian perpetrators exploit this legal structure knowing tribal courts cannot prosecute them while federal prosecutors decline an estimated 67% of reservation sexual assault cases, leaving Indigenous women subject to epidemic sexual violence without legal recourse. This legal architecture demonstrates embodied domination: management paradigms don't simply extract economic value but render marginalized bodies vulnerable to violence through jurisdictional structures protecting perpetrators. The parallel to workplace sexual harassment is direct—organizational hierarchies similarly create jurisdictional confusion where managers exploit power differentials knowing complaints navigate labyrinthine HR procedures designed to protect institutional interests rather than vulnerable workers. 50 | Page Rewilding and resurgence demonstrate viable alternatives. Monbiot's (2013) ecological research proves ecosystems flourish when freed from management control, developing complexity and productivity exceeding designed systems. Alfred's (2005) political theory of resurgence shows cultures regenerate when released from colonial domination, developing governance sophistication external management cannot impose. Both validate identical insight: complex adaptive systems possess inherent capacities for self-organization, adaptation, and regeneration that control paradigms suppress. Organizations—themselves complex adaptive systems—can apply these principles through what we term organizational rewilding, which is the releasing of hierarchical control to enable worker intelligence while restoring stakeholder relationships degraded under extraction, revitalizing traditional knowledge systems, scientific management destroyed, and embracing regeneration over extraction. Cases that prove viability such as Patagonia's environmental commitment, Buurtzorg's management removal, Mondragón's democratic governance, and Indigenous enterprises' traditional knowledge integration all demonstrate organizations releasing control to achieve outcomes exceeding conventional management. This synthesis offers management theory post-neoliberal frameworks grounded in regeneration; practitioners specific principles for implementation; and society pathways toward sustainable economies, decolonized business, and democratic workplaces. Indigenous wisdom and ecological science converge on essential truth: trust enables flourishing control disrupts. Business schools must integrate rewilding and resurgence into curricula, teaching sevengeneration thinking alongside financial analysis, Indigenous governance alongside organizational behavior, and ecosystem principles alongside strategy. Practitioners should experiment boldly, 51 | Page recognizing that transition challenges and power resistance require patience but that regenerative alternatives already exist, proven viable by nature and Indigenous peoples across millennia. Researchers should test rigorously, developing evidence distinguishing contexts where autonomy succeeds from contexts requiring control, refining principles through empirical analysis. Most fundamentally, society needs regenerative economies. The alternative to management-asdomination exists in rewilded ecosystems and resurgent cultures. Organizational transformation represents not utopian fantasy but practical application of principles ecosystems and Indigenous peoples demonstrate daily. As Monbiot (2013, p. 81) writes: "Our rivers, like the land, have suffered from intensive management. They have been straightened and canalized, dredged and cleared. The results have hurt both wildlife and people: by reducing the amount of time that water takes to flow from the tributaries into the lower reaches, we have ensured that the rivers are more likely to flood. " Organizations can emerge from this shadowland by learning what nature and Indigenous wisdom teach: liberation enables flourishing control disrupts. The question is whether management theory possesses courage to abandon inheritance from colonialism and industrialism and embrace regeneration's radical promise. Use of AI Tools: Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript preparation process: During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used a large language model to assist with various aspects of manuscript preparation, including generating initial drafts, refining prose for clarity and conciseness, summarizing key arguments, and structuring sections. The authors reviewed, edited, and validated all AI-generated content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the published article. 52 | Page REFERENCES Alfred, T. (2005). Wasáse: Indigenous pathways of action and freedom. University of Toronto Press. Alfred, T. (2009). Peace, power, righteousness: An indigenous manifesto (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Alfred, T. (2023). It's all about the land: Collected talks and interviews on Indigenous resurgence. University of Toronto Press. Anderson, R. (2009). Confessions of a radical industrialist. St. Martin's Press. Arando, S., Gago, M., Jones, D. C., & Kato, T. (2015). Efficiency in Employee-Owned Enterprises: An Econometric Case Study of Mondragon: An Econometric Case Study of Mondragon. ILR Review, 68(2), 398-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793914564966 Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96-103. https://hbr.org/2017/05/neurodiversity-as-a-competitiveadvantage Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead, S. (2001). Globalization, Multiculturalism and Other Fictions: Colonialism for the New Millennium? Organization, 8(4), 683-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840184006 Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Necrocapitalism. Organization Studies, 29(12), 1541-1563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607096386 53 | Page Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M. C. (2019). Professionalizing the assurance of sustainability reports: The auditors' perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(1), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2019-3918 Borrows, J. (2010). Drawing out law: A spirit's guide. University of Toronto Press. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press. Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publishers. Carver, S., Convery, I., Kun, Z., Van Maanen, E., Beyers, R., Eagle, A., Fisher, M., Edwards, S. R., Nelson, C., Andrade, A., Aguilar, K., Sinclair, A., Bekoff, M., Hawkins, S., Cao, Y., Gann, G. D., Shurter, S., Ripple, W. J., Davis, J., … Aykroyd, T. (2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology, 35(6), 1882–1893. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13730 Carver, S., Hawkins, S., Convery, I., Beyers, R., Derham, T., & Cao, Y. (2025). Rewilding: Ten years of evolution and development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 50, 625– 647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-111523-102359 Chouinard, Y. (2016). Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman-- Including 10 More Years of Business Unusual. Penguin Books. Cooperative Economics Alliance. (2020). The cooperative advantage. CEA Press. Cooke, B. (2003). The denial of slavery in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 40(8), 1895–1918. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00405.x 54 | Page Coulthard, G. (2014). Red skin, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. University of Minnesota Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139-167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8 Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 Cromsigt, J. P. G. M., Kemp, Y. J. M., Rodriguez, E., & Kivit, H. (2018). Rewilding Europe's large grazer community. Restoration Ecology, 26(1), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12661 Deer, S. (2015). The beginning and end of rape: Confronting sexual violence in native America. University of Minnesota Press. Deloria, V. (1995). Red Earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Scribner. Dutt, D., Alves, C., Kesar, S., & Kvangraven, I. H. (2025). Decolonizing economics: An introduction. Polity Press. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2015). Towards a circular economy. EMF Publishing. Errasti, A., Bretos, I., & Nunez, A. (2017). The viability of cooperatives. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 88(2), 189–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613416666533 First Nations Development Institute. (2022). Annual report 2022. FNDI. 55 | Page Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/afriedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html Gallup. (2023). State of the global workplace: 2023 report. Gallup Press. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558 Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. Simon & Schuster. Hassard, J. (2012). Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11), 1431–1461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726712452168 IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, & H. T. Ngo (Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673 Jørgensen, D. (2015). Rethinking rewilding. Geoforum, 65, 482-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.016 Kasmir, S. (1996). The myth of Mondragón. SUNY Press. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions. Laloux, F. (2014). Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Brussels: Nelson Parker.. 56 | Page Lorimer, J., Sandom, C., Jepson, P., Doughty, C., Barua, M., & Kirby, K. J. (2015). Rewilding: Science, practice, and politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021406 Monbiot, G. (2013). Feral: Rewilding the land, sea and human life. Penguin Books. Monsen, K., & de Blok, J. (2013). Buurtzorg Nederland. American Journal of Nursing, 113(8), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000432966.26257.97 Mutillod, C., Buisson, É., Mahy, G., Jaunatre, R., Bullock, J.M., Tatin, L. and Dutoit, T. (2024), Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals?. Biological Reviews, 99: 820-836. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13046 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978). Pereira, H. M., & Navarro, L. M. (Eds.). (2015). Rewilding European landscapes. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3 Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. Farrar & Rinehart. Ripple, W. J., & Beschta, R. L. (2012). Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biological Conservation, 145(1), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.005 Robertson, B. J. (2015). The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. Henry Holt and Co. Royster, J. V., Blumm, M. C., & Kronk Warner, E. A. (2018). Native American natural resources law: Cases and materials (4th ed.). Carolina Academic Press.