A systems‐theoretical look at stakeholder theory: Lessons from Bogdanov's Tektology

Valentinov, Vladislav Article — Published Version A systems‐theoretical look at stakeholder theory: Lessons from Bogdanov's Tektology Business and Society Review Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Valentinov, Vladislav (2025) : A systems‐theoretical look at stakeholder theory: Lessons from Bogdanov's Tektology, Business and Society Review, ISSN 1467-8594, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 130, Iss. 3, pp. 414-439, https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.70018 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329792 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ORIGINAL ARTICLE A systems-theoretical look at stakeholder theory: Lessons from Bogdanov's Tektology Vladislav Valentinov 1,2,3 1 Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Halle, Germany 2 Department of Law and Economics, Martin Luther University, Halle, Germany 3 Next Society Institute, Kazimieras Simonaviˇ cius University, Vilnius, Lithuania Correspondence Vladislav Valentinov, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2, 06120 Halle, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract We explore how the conversation between stakeholder theory and systems theory can illustrate the unique role of stakeholder management within the system of capitalistic institutions. Toward that end, we call the attention of stakeholder scholars to Alexander Bogdanov's Tektology, an early version of systems theory that raised critical concerns about capitalism. According to Tektology, capitalism fosters individualistic and conflict-driven mindsets, which stymie society's ability to achieve its full collaborative potential. If stakeholder theory takes this critique on board, it may conceptualize social collaboration as “organized complexity”that can materialize if human actors overcome their reductionist mindsets. This conceptual move highlights novel systems-theoretical foundations for stakeholder theory's insights into the role of stakeholder mindsets in unlocking collaborative potential within capitalist societies. The resulting added value for stakeholder theory lies in recognizing the collaborative nature of capitalism as an institutional accomplishment facilitated by stakeholder management practices, which operate along non-linear pathways and generate emergent and counter-intuitive outcomes. Internet: www.iamo.de Received: 14 April 2023 Accepted: 16 July 2025 DOI: 10.1111/basr.70018 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Business and Society Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Albert P. Viragh Institute for Ethics in Business at Duquesne University. 414 Bus Soc Rev. 2025;130:414–439. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/basr KEYWORDS stakeholder theory, systems theory, Tektology 1|INTRODUCTION Stakeholder theory takes central interest in how business as well as non-business actors collaborate in the processes of value creation (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022; Freeman, 1984). This collaboration is significantly facilitated by the prevalence of stakeholder mindsets, which, according to Freeman et al. (2020, p. 217), enable managers to understand business as “a system, embedded within a set of larger systems”. This systems view of business is at the core of the ongoing conversation between systems theory and stakeholder theory. This conversation goes back to the very origins of stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 39) and continues today as stakeholder scholars reexamine the systems-theoretical legacy of eminent thinkers, such as Ludwig von Bertalanffy (cf. Roulet & Bothello, 2022) and Niklas Luhmann (cf. Valentinov et al., 2019). Despite Freeman's endorsement of the systems perspective in stakeholder theory, stakeholder scholars still see their field of scholarship to be affected by “the stakeholder systemdivide”(Johnson-Cramer et al., 2022, p. 1112; cf. Wood, 1994). This divide means that stakeholder theory scholarship has prioritized the firm level of analysis over the system level (ibid). The lack of engagement with the system-level analysis represents a significant gap, particularly in view of the long-standing interest of stakeholder scholars in the economic system of capitalism and how it can evolve into stakeholder capitalism (e.g., Freeman et al., 2007; Freeman & Freeman, 2023). Thus, in the context of the ongoing conversation between stakeholder theory and systems theory, a major problematic implication of the stakeholder system-divide is the lack of consideration for the concept of capitalism. The present paper bridges this gap by approaching stakeholder theory from the perspective of a unique version of systems theory that offers explicit critiques of capitalism. The systems theory in question is Alexander Bogdanov's Tektology, a foundational and encyclopedic body of work that emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century, predating the more well-known general systems theory of Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Bogdanov, a prominent Russian Marxist and Bolshevik, viewed capitalism as a conflict-ridden and oppressive system that hinders society from realizing its full collaborative potential. He articulated his critical perspective on capitalism using a systems-theoretical (tektological) vocabulary. We will argue that Bogdanov's systems-theoretical view of capitalism as a social system that falls short of fully realizing human collaborative potential provides a valuable intellectual resource for stakeholder theory. Importantly, we want to emphasize that our objective is not to interpret stakeholder theory through a Marxist lens. Rather, we contend that it is mainstream shareholder capitalism that exhibits the problem pointed out by Bogdanov. We see the essence of stakeholder capitalism precisely in resolving this problem, thereby transforming capitalism into a genuinely “cooperative system of innovation, value creation, and exchange”(Freeman et al., 2007, p. 6). In the remainder of the paper, we will proceed as follows: the next section will outline the qualitative conceptual research methodology used in this study. Section 3will review current systems-theoretical ideas in the stakeholder literature. Building on this, Section 4will present our conceptual strategy for identifying linkages between stakeholder theory and Tektology, setting the stage for a brief overview of Bogdanov's Tektology in Section 5. Section 6will then develop an approach to conceptualizing stakeholder management in tektological (i.e., systemsVALENTINOV 415 theoretical) terms. The subsequent sections will analyze the contributions of this approach to stakeholder theory, discuss practical implications, and summarize our argument, highlighting both its limitations and implications for future research. 2|A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY This research employs a qualitative approach centered on the development of a conceptual framework. Maxwell (2013, p. 49) defines a conceptual framework as ‘the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs…research.’Our framework bridges stakeholder theory and systems theory, addressing the stakeholder-system divide identified by Johnson-Cramer et al. (2022). It also seeks to mitigate tensions between stakeholder theory and economics (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022; Freeman, Phillips, & Sisodia, 2020) by establishing links between these disciplines. Furthermore, by highlighting the interplay between stakeholder management and capitalism as a system, the framework offers multi-level insights and broadens our understanding of how stakeholder mindsets can overcome limitations of traditional capitalism. The development of our conceptual framework involved a comprehensive literature review and thematic analysis. The literature review focused on Tektology (both primary and secondary sources) and the intersection of systems theory and stakeholder theory. Thematic analysis aimed to identify key themes related to how Tektology can inform stakeholder theory, such as organized complexity, stakeholder mindsets, and the institutional context of capitalism. These themes were then analyzed to understand how Tektology's emphasis on organized complexity can inform stakeholder theory. The authors' combined background in systems theory (including Tektology) and stakeholder theory, along with the conducted literature review, served as the foundation for the conceptual framework. Additionally, pilot explorations and thought experiments were conducted to explore how these theories could be combined to offer new insights into understanding capitalism as a social system within which stakeholder management operates. These explorations particularly focused on how the capitalist system impacts humanity's ability to grapple with phenomena of organized complexity. Transparency is crucial to mitigate the subjectivity inherent in thematic analysis. Therefore, in Section 4, we outlined our conceptual strategy for identifying missing links between Tektology and stakeholder theory. Our evaluation of the potential and limitations of using Tektology to enrich stakeholder theory acknowledges the ideological differences between the two perspectives while exploring areas where they can complement each other. 3|THE SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE IN STAKEHOLDER THEORY: A REVIEW AND AN ASSESSMENT 3.1 |A key tension: From fascination to “stakeholder-system divide” We see the conversation between stakeholder theory and systems theory as a burgeoning area of exploration within contemporary stakeholder theory scholarship. On one hand, systems scholars are showing increasing interest in stakeholder theory (Gregory et al., 2020; PaucarCaceres et al., 2022; Valentinov & Roth, 2023). On the other hand, Freeman and his collaborators champion the notion that stakeholder theory endows business with a comprehensive and 416 VALENTINOV holistic outlook. They assert that every enterprise functions as a constituent of a larger system intricately woven into a network of systems. Consequently, for effective leadership and a thorough grasp of corporate dynamics, managers should embrace a systems perspective, naturally giving rise to a stakeholder perspective (Freeman, Phillips, & Sisodia, 2020, p. 217). This systems perspective within stakeholder theory can be traced back to its roots in the systems theory literature, an origin aptly recognized by Freeman et al. (2010, p. 39). A hallmark of this literature is Ackoff's (1974) stakeholder analysis methodology that was concerned with redesigning institutions through stakeholder engagement, particularly in the context of addressing system-wide challenges (cf. Freeman et al., 2010, p. 40). Notably, after establishing the significance of the systems perspective within stakeholder theory, Freeman et al. (2020, p. 221) delve into a discourse on how stakeholder theory fosters “a higher consciousness among business leaders, enabling them to perceive the interconnectedness and interdependence that escapes those operating with a less elevated level of consciousness”. The authors see this higher consciousness as a fundamental element of stakeholder mindsets, equipping managers to fundamentally reframe their core strategic questions. According to Freeman et al. (2007, p. 11), the prevailing paradigm of business poses an erroneous question concerning the distribution of benefits and burdens among stakeholders. Conversely, the stakeholder mindset prompts a distinct query: how an organization can maximize value creation for all its stakeholders? This mindset underscores the transformative potential of stakeholder theory while linking it to the systems perspective, stressing interconnectedness and interdependence. Interestingly, despite Freeman, Phillips, and Sisodia’s( 2020) resounding support for the systems perspective and its connection to the stakeholder perspective, Johnson-Cramer et al. (2022, p. 1112) highlight a noticeable “stakeholder-system divide”in the existing stakeholder scholarship. This divide underscores a persistent disparity between analyses conducted at the firm level and those at the system level within the domain of stakeholder theory. If Johnson-Cramer et al. (2022) are right, stakeholder theory has, thus far, evidently offered limited insights into societal system-level outcomes, giving rise to the need for a system-level stakeholder theory, as anticipated by Wood (1994). We see the stakeholder-system divide to have been foreshadowed by Freeman et al.’s( 2010, p. 40) insightful critique of Ackoff's (1974) stakeholder analysis methodology. Ackoff (1974) argued that societal problem-solving at a narrower level than total system design might be ineffective, whereas Freeman et al. (2010, p. 40) saw such problem-solving as extending beyond the purview of traditional corporate-level strategic management, which constitutes the central focus of stakeholder theory. 3.2 |Bridging the stakeholder-system divide: a perspective Johnson-Cramer et al. (2022) have presented valuable recommendations for bridging the stakeholder-system divide. One of these proposals centers on emphasizing the role of stakeholder management in contributing to system-level outcomes. Another approach involves an investigation into the question of, “What is the nature of the cycle whereby firm-stakeholder relations, policies, and structures derive from and recursively shape institutional arrangements at the macro level?”(ibid, p. 1114). We view these two strategies as complementary, operating bidirectionally, with one path moving from the stakeholder level to the system level and the other in the reverse direction. An illustrative approach that bridges the divide from the stakeholder level to the system level involves the exploration of how stakeholder theory can be harnessed to address grand challenges VALENTINOV 417 (Johnson-Cramer et al., 2022; Schwab & Vanham, 2021; Wasieleski et al., 2021;Brammer et al., 2019). In a recent and pivotal development toward establishing a systems perspective within stakeholder theory, Roulet and Bothello (2022) contend that the traditional emphasis on dyadic firm-stakeholder relationships and stakeholder networks falls short when addressing the formidable grand challenges confronting modern society. According to Roulet and Bothello (ibid), effectively confronting these grand challenges necessitates the formation of stakeholder systems, which they define as assemblages “of actors who perform various roles and functions but collectively mobilize towards the achievement of a larger social goal”. Recognizing the lack of a system-level perspective in conventional stakeholder theory, Roulet and Bothello (ibid) draw inspiration from von Bertalanffy's (1968) general systems theory. On this basis, the authors delineate both the structural and dyadic dimensions of stakeholder systems and their cumulative evolutionary pathways (ibid). Their research is complemented by the work of Valentinov et al. (2019), who amalgamate insights from von Bertalanffy and Luhmann to craft a further systems-theoretical view of stakeholder theory. Valentinov et al. (2019) show the interconnection between system-level outcomes of stakeholder management and firm-stakeholder interdependencies to be firmly rooted in shared stakeholder interests. In the subsequent work, Valentinov and Hajdu (2021)buildonthese Luhmannian ideas to scrutinize how corporate participation in economic and non-economic functional systems translates into instrumental and normative justifications for stakeholder theory. The strategy of bridging the stakeholder-system divide by transitioning from the stakeholder level to the system level is rooted in those facets of stakeholder scholarship that challenge and critique firm-centric interpretations of stakeholder theory. While scholars such as Bevan et al. (2019) and Werhane (2002) embed these critiques within a systems perspective, a noteworthy segment of stakeholder scholarship that advances similar arguments has not overtly aligned itself with systems theory (e.g., Berman & Johnson-Cramer, 2019, p. 1370; Calton & Payne, 2003; Sachs & Rühli, 2011). In their endeavor to transcend firm-centric interpretations of stakeholder theory, stakeholder scholars have delved into various institutional forms, such as stakeholder systems (Roulet & Bothello, 2022), networks (Bevan et al., 2019; Rowley, 1997; Sachs & Rühli, 2011), as well as relational and processual models of stakeholder interaction (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2016; Valentinov & Chia, 2022). A related strand of stakeholder scholarship has probed how stakeholder theory can shed light on systemic changes (Waddock & Kuenkel, 2020), including the transition toward a circular economy (Schultz et al., 2023). Another strategy for bridging the stakeholder-system divide, as expounded in JohnsonCramer et al.’s( 2022) analysis, involves tracing the relationships between firms and stakeholders back to the “institutional arrangements at the macro level”. In our perspective, this strategy operates from the system level to the stakeholder level. This approach is deeply rooted in those aspects of stakeholder scholarship that perceive the process of stakeholder management as intricately intertwined with specific systems of social and economic institutions. An exemplary illustration of this perspective can be found in Freeman, Parmar, and Martin's (2020) consideration of corporations as entities “situated in society”and reliant upon “societal norms, infrastructure, and laws”. In this line, a considerable body of stakeholder scholarship has examined how the nature of stakeholder management varies across distinct institutional environments (Dorobantu, 2019). Stakeholder theorists acknowledge these broader institutional environments as important sources of normativity (Johnson-Cramer et al., 2022; Wood, 1994). For example, Wood (1994) envisioned a potential role for a system-level stakeholder theory in recognizing how the broader social systems within which stakeholder relationships are embedded generate principles of fairness for governing these relationships. 418 VALENTINOV 3.3 |Bringing in capitalism We argue that insofar as the stakeholder-system divide can be bridged by analyzing how stakeholder relationships are influenced by their broader institutional environments, it is logical to view capitalism as a quintessential example of such a broader institutional environment or encompassing social system. Remarkably, despite the significant attention given to the concept of stakeholder capitalism and the role of stakeholder management within capitalism (e.g., Freeman & By, 2022; Freeman & Freeman, 2023; Freeman, Parmar, & Martin, 2020), the concept of capitalism has not yet been specifically examined in the context of the stakeholder-system divide. Simultaneously, given the substantial interest within the stakeholder literature in the subject of capitalism, we contend that such an exploration would strike at the very core of stakeholder theory. The primary reason for our contention is that Freeman has consistently emphasized that stakeholder management is intricately woven into the capitalist system (ibid). In this line, Freeman and colleagues have not only demonstrated that stakeholder theory itself is inherently pro-business and pro-capitalistic (cf. Freeman et al., 2007, p. iii) but also explored how the concept of stakeholder capitalism could transcend the limitations of mainstream shareholder capitalism (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 280). As elucidated by Freeman et al. (2007), conventional shareholder capitalism deserves criticism for promoting simplistic notions of self-interest, competition, and a zero-sum game. These critiques necessitate a reframing of the conventional narrative of capitalism by acknowledging the contributions of diverse stakeholders to collaborative value creation (ibid). Despite the resonance of the concept of capitalism with much of the stakeholder thinking, it has not yet been effectively linked to systems theory and the endeavor to bridge the stakeholder-system divide. This represents a significant gap that we aim to address. We suspect that the main reason for the persistence of this gap is the widespread perception that systems-theoretical approaches tend to be quite abstract and, therefore, may not be well-suited for dealing with more specific categories of institutional economics, such as capitalism. While this perception may have some validity (Hodgson, 2001), we want to draw readers' attention to a specific systems-theoretical approach that directly engages with critiques of capitalism, namely Bogdanov's Tektology. We argue that the direct engagement with capitalism is a primary reason why Bogdanov's Tektology stands out in the broad landscape of systems-theoretical literature even today (cf. Jackson, 2019). The enduring relevance of Tektology is highlighted by the publication of a special issue on Tektology in the specialized systems theory journal Systems Research and Behavioral Science, commemorating the 150th anniversary of Bogdanov's work (cf. Jackson, 2023; Kleiner, 2023). Therefore, in this paper, we aim to enhance the ongoing dialogue between stakeholder theory and systems theory, particularly in the context of bridging the stakeholder-system divide, by paying closer attention to capitalism and drawing insights from Bogdanov's Tektology. In line with this aim, the next section clarifies how Tektology helps identify some of the missing links between systems theory and stakeholder theory. 4|CONCEPTUAL STRATEGY As a prominent representative of the systems theory literature that emerged at the dawn of the twentieth century (cf. Capra & Luisi, 2014; Jackson, 2019), Tektology provides a vivid illustration of how a systems perspective transcends the limitations of reductionist thinking in comprehending organized complexity and relates this thinking to the context of capitalism. Tektological ideas accordingly go a long way toward providing a possible illustration of how VALENTINOV 419 Johnson-Cramer et al.’s(2022) above-mentioned second strategy of bridging the stakeholdersystem divide may work. Toward this end, the present section introduces a conceptual framework that prepares the ground for imagining a productive interaction between Tektology and stakeholder theory. This framework highlights the contribution of (tektologically informed) systems theory to bridging the stakeholder-system divide and underscores the key role of organized complexity as a long-standing starting point of systems thinking (cf. Capra & Luisi, 2014; Jackson, 2019; von Bertalanffy, 1968). The concept of organized complexity can be clarified by reference to Weaver's (1948) distinction between simplicity, disorganized complexity, and organized complexity. Weaver elucidated that simplicity, the conventional problem type in natural sciences during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, typically involved a small number of variables interconnected through deterministic relationships. In contrast, disorganized complexity pertains to problems characterized by an exceedingly large number of variables, each behaving erratically and, in some cases, even being completely unknown (Weaver, 1948, p. 538). As Jackson (2019, p. 71) explains, simplicity can be effectively addressed using calculus and differential equations, while disorganized complexity falls within the domain of statistics, probability theory, and thermodynamics. Conversely, as noted by Jackson (2019, p. 72), organized complexity poses challenges that are too intricate for straightforward analysis yet too structured for statistical approaches. These problems necessitate the simultaneous consideration of a substantial number of interconnected factors, forming an organic whole (cf. Weaver, 1948, p. 539). Organized complexity has been the primary epistemic challenge that gave rise to the growing prominence of systems thinking and general systems theory in the first half of the twentieth century. During that period, many scholars realized that the scientific worldview originating from Newtonian physics and Cartesian dualistic philosophy was too mechanistic for explaining many natural and social phenomena (Capra & Luisi, 2014). A key example is von Bertalanffy's commentary that the mechanistic approach of classical physics, which epitomized this scientific worldview, “appeared to neglect or actively deny just what is essential in the phenomena of life” (von Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 12). The phenomena of life stand here as an example of organized complexity, which can also be described by “concepts like those of organization, wholeness, directiveness, teleology, and differentiation [that] are alien to classical physics. However, they pop up everywhere in the biological, behavioural, and social sciences, and are, in fact, indispensable for dealing with living organisms or social groups”(ibid, p. 34). Today's literature at the intersection of systems theory and complexity science and management and organization theory (cf. Allen et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 1999; Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972; von Bertalanffy, 1972) relates the concept of organized complexity to promoting strategic business success, addressing wicked problems and grand challenges (Grewatsch et al., 2021; cf. Capra & Luisi, 2014, p. xi), and illuminating corporate sustainability problems (Bansal & Song, 2017; Williams et al., 2021). Diverse as they are, systems-theoretical ideas imply the need to overcome “reductionist thinking”which prioritizes independence over interconnectedness (Grewatsch et al., 2021, p. 6), and firm level over system level (ibid). At bottom, reductionist thinking seeks to reduce the understanding of systemic behavior to the behavior of its individual parts (Bansal & Song, 2017, p. 124). Meadows (2008) acknowledges that reductionist thinking is a pervasive human tendency, especially in everyday life. To her, the importance of systems theory consists precisely in overcoming the frailties of reductionist thinking, particularly when it is taken for common sense (cf. also Laszlo, 1972). From today's point of view, a unique insight of Tektology is its application of the idea of organized complexity to social collaboration, which may unfold or fail to do so depending on 420 VALENTINOV the nature of the mindsets of individual actors. Following through on this insight allows the identification of several interrelated novel connections between stakeholder theory and systems theory, which have not been developed in previous scholarship exploring the intersection of these literatures. Table 1visualizes how these novel connections arise through the integration of specific ideas from Tektology and stakeholder theory. As shown in the table, one emerging novel connection is between the understanding of social collaboration and stakeholder mindsets. Insofar as this collaboration is seen to embody organized complexity, stakeholder mindsets become comparable to the application of systems thinking, which overcomes the limitations of reductionist mechanistic thinking. Similar to systems scholars acknowledging that the primary challenge in addressing organized complexity lies in overcoming Cartesian reductionism, which is deeply rooted in the scientific worldview that prevailed from the Scientific Revolution until the early twentieth century (Capra & Luisi, 2014; Jackson, 2019; von Bertalanffy, 1968), stakeholder management encounters a parallel challenge of understanding the organized complexity of social collaboration. Whereas Freeman, Phillips, and Sisodia (2020) suggest that stakeholder theory sees business as a system “embedded within a set of larger systems,”a tektological view discerns behind this embeddedness a pattern of organized complexity underpinning social collaboration and calling for systems thinking in the form of stakeholder mindsets. Another emerging novel connection between stakeholder theory and systems theory pertains to the logical relationship between traditional managerial mindsets and reductionist mechanistic mindsets, which go back to the scientific worldview that prevailed since the Scientific Revolution. Traditional managerial mindsets prioritize profit maximization, which ultimately “sets …stakeholders as adversarial claimants on what is seen as a limited pool of available profit in the system …Each stakeholder becomes a taker from the system, which inevitably weakens and degrades the ability of the system to realize its stated goal of maximizing profits”(Freeman, Phillips, & Sisodia, 2020, p. 220 et seq.). Whereas Freeman, Phillips, and TABLE 1 Novel connections between stakeholder theory and systems theory, suggested by Tektology. Tektological ideas Stakeholder theory ideas Emerging connections between stakeholder theory and systems theory Social collaboration is an embodiment of organized complexity requiring systems thinking Stakeholder mindsets allow business to be seen as operating in a complex and dynamic environment (cf. Freeman, 1984; Freeman, Phillips, & Sisodia, 2020) Stakeholder mindsets may represent a form of systems thinking that can address the organized complexity of social collaboration within business The organized complexity of social collaboration cannot be grasped by mechanistic mindsets Stakeholder mindsets overcome the limitations of traditional managerial mindsets (cf. Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2010; Freeman, Phillips, & Sisodia, 2020) Traditional managerial mindsets may be an example of reductionist mechanistic thinking, which fails to address the organized complexity of social collaboration within business Scholars adopting mechanistic mindsets cannot explain specific phenomena of organized complexity, such as life Managers adopting traditional mindsets have difficulty dealing with change (Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2007) The inability of managers to deal with change may exemplify a broader failure to grasp the organized complexity of social collaboration VALENTINOV 421 commodity fetishism, Bogdanov (ibid, p. 79) noted that the individualistic habits of thought result in the degeneration of the prevalent understandings of value, both economic and moral, into fetishisms which reveal the helplessness of individual actors in the face of “naked, abstract necessity”expressed in the chaotic play of social forces. Accordingly, if the idea of shareholder wealth maximization takes primacy over the more generic goal of sustainable wealth creation (cf. Jones & Harrison, 2019), a tektological perspective would see it as a fetishism reflecting the fragmented state of business life. Thus, tektology would explain the crucial role of stakeholder mindsets in terms of their capacity to replace fetishistic ideas with an awareness of shared purposes and moral principles as the foundations of stakeholder collaborations. Third, a tektological perspective reveals a deeper ground behind the idea of the turbulence of the business environment as a driving force of stakeholder management. Turbulence has long been discussed by management and organization theorists (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Emery & Trist, 1965); some of its salient practical implications include environmental dynamism, high knowledge intensity of specific business activities, and significant task and outcome interdependence (Jones et al., 2018, p. 381). Freeman et al. (2010, p. 3) drew on these discussions to argue that the traditional model of shareholder capitalism worked well “during a time when there was much less concern with turbulence”(Freeman et al., 2010, p. 3). In today's business world, however, managers are better advised to focus on nurturing moral relationships with stakeholders (ibid). On a tektological view, the condition of turbulence reflects the problematic chaos resulting from the lack of social organization, which would be required to reflect the unity of “social labor”(Bogdanov, 2016, p. 64). The chaos emerges because this unity cannot be grasped by mindsets steeped in individualistic habits of thought, giving primacy to competition and specialization. In short, the chaos is the consequence of social atomism, which is actively promoted by capitalism (Bogdanov, 2016, p. 73). It seems plausible that this chaos, or turbulence in today's stakeholder theory parlance, is exacerbated by “[t]the rise of globalization, the dominance of information technology, the liberalization of states, especially the demise of centralized state planning and ownership of industry, and increased societal awareness of the impact of business on communities and nations”(Freeman et al., 2010, p. 3). The possible impact of Tektology on our understanding of stakeholder management is summarized in Table 2, which illustrates the interplay between two key distinctions: stakeholder management vs. traditional management driven by the shareholder wealth maximization paradigm, and stakeholder mindsets vs. traditional managerial mindsets rooted in the same paradigm. As depicted in the table, managers guided by traditional mindsets and practicing traditional management may encounter the turbulence issue identified by Freeman et al. (2010, p. 3) or a problematic state of chaos critiqued by Tektology. When managers guided by traditional mindsets attempt to implement stakeholder management, they are likely to grapple with trade-offs among the legitimate interests of stakeholders. At the same time, by adopting stakeholder mindsets, managers are more likely to recognize the untapped potential for collaborative opportunities that remains restricted within traditional management guided by the shareholder wealth maximization paradigm. As a result, managers who adopt stakeholder mindsets and put them into practice within stakeholder management are likely to realize these collaboration opportunities, ultimately achieving what Freeman et al. (2018, p. 3) describe as ‘win-win-winwin-win’relationships. These relationships have the capacity to transcend trade-offs among legitimate stakeholder interests by leveraging the unlocked collaboration opportunities previously constrained within those trade-offs. Table 2provides valuable insights into how managers can shift their mindsets, even if these mindsets are initially rooted in traditional shareholder wealth maximization. Such mindsets are 428 VALENTINOV likely to prove frustrating for managers, whether due to navigating chaos or turbulence, or managing trade-offs among stakeholder interests. In contrast, managers who adopt stakeholder mindsets tend to uncover new collaborative opportunities, thereby avoiding frustration. Ultimately, managers fully embracing stakeholder mindsets and practices are well-positioned to achieve the ‘win-win-win-win-win’relationships described by Freeman et al. (2018). Table 2 underscores that managers may start with traditional mindsets shaped by shareholder wealth maximization but can transition toward stakeholder mindsets due to their ability to reveal collaborative opportunities. By seizing these opportunities, managers initiate a co-evolutionary dynamic between mindsets and managerial practices. This dynamic has the potential to integrate stakeholder mindsets with effective stakeholder management practices, ultimately creating shared value for all stakeholders involved. For the sake of clarity, it is important to underscore that the distinctions between management styles and mindsets presented in Table 2are not intended to serve as rigid or overly simplified portrayals of real-world managerial practices. Rather, these categories function as ideal types in the Weberian tradition—conceptual abstractions designed to illuminate the underlying patterns of managerial reasoning and decision-making, thereby elucidating the fundamental logic of distinct managerial orientations. Thus, Table 2should be read with full recognition that, in practice, firms often exhibit hybrid characteristics, both in terms of management styles and managerial mindsets. This table, therefore, is not a rigid classification system, but rather a conceptual mapping tool, offering a framework through which to discern how managerial mindsets interact with management styles in shaping organizational outcomes. This framing allows Table 2to illustrate how managerial mindsets may evolve over time through an adaptive, iterative process, whereby managers progressively identify new opportunities for collaboration and recalibrate their strategic approaches accordingly. From a tektological standpoint, this evolution is part of a broader systemic transformation in how firms navigate complexity. 7|CONTRIBUTIONS TO STAKEHOLDER THEORY The preceding section has demonstrated that Tektology and stakeholder theory both see humanity's collaborative potential to be constrained by prevailing capitalist institutions that promote reductionist, individualistic, and competitive thinking. Tektology's central contribution lies in its emphasis on the deep-rooted systems-theoretical foundations of this argument. In particular, Tektology establishes a connection between humanity's collaborative potential and the concept of organized complexity, a central focus within systems theory (Jackson, 2019, p. 73; Weaver, 1948; von Bertalanffy, 1968). This contribution is far from trivial. In von Bertalanffy's era, particularly given his background in biology, organized complexity primarily pertained to the enigmatic nature of life that defied mechanistic interpretations. In the contemporary TABLE 2 A tektological perspective on stakeholder management. Traditional management Stakeholder management Traditional mindsets Managers are likely to experience problems of turbulence or chaos Managers are likely to experience stakeholder interest trade-offs Stakeholder mindsets Managers are likely to discover untapped collaboration opportunities Managers are likely to achieve ‘win-win-win-winwin’relationships (Freeman et al., 2018,p.3) VALENTINOV 429 context, organized complexity has evolved to encompass topics such as sustainability (cf. Bansal & Song, 2017), wicked problems, and grand challenges (Grewatsch et al., 2021; Jackson, 2019; Valentinov & Pérez-Valls, 2021). In contrast, Tektology primarily associates organized complexity with human collaboration. This collaboration holds the potential for innovative productivity gains but is often hindered by reductionist habits of thought rooted in specialization, competition, and conflict. Tektology considers the organized complexity of human collaboration to be a practical goal that can be achieved through a more comprehensive understanding of capitalism, as facilitated by stakeholder theory. According to this viewpoint, organized complexity emerges as an inherent attribute of social collaboration that should be liberated from the institutional constraints of shareholder capitalism. Stakeholder mindsets assume a pivotal role in enabling this liberation. Just as mechanistic thinking is inadequate to grasp the organized complexity of life, as suggested by von Bertalanffy (1968, p. 34), reductionist mindsets entrenched in specialization, competition, and conflict are similarly unsuitable for realizing the organized complexity of social collaboration within the tektological framework. As a practical goal, the organizational complexity of social collaboration can be realized when economic decision-makers successfully cultivate stakeholder mindsets that prioritize the creation of shared value for stakeholders (cf. Freeman et al., 2007, p. 11). Building upon this tektological interpretation of stakeholder mindsets, we can pinpoint a second significant contribution of Tektology to stakeholder theory: the potential solution for bridging the stakeholder-system divide as outlined by Johnson-Cramer (2022, p. 1112). From a tektological viewpoint, this divide can be effectively bridged by fostering the adoption of stakeholder mindsets among corporate managers. These mindsets act as the bridge connecting the managerial focus of stakeholder theory (Phillips et al., 2019) and the practical goal of realizing the organized complexity of social collaboration. We argue that this organized complexity is fundamentally situated at the system level –a modern concept corresponding to Bogdanov's (2016, p. 64) notion of “social-labor unity”. While stakeholder theory links business success with the ethical treatment of stakeholders, the tektological perspective recognizes that both of these dimensions share a common challenge: transcending reductionist mindsets to unlock the latent potential of social collaboration. The tektological perspective provides a lens to identify this potential, defining it as a manifestation of organized complexity. Thus, on the tektological view, the ethical treatment of stakeholders is fundamentally rooted in a systemic understanding of business within the context of organized complexity of social collaboration, with business success acting as an indicator of this untapped potential being realized. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the proposed tektological interpretation of stakeholder theory invites a rethinking of the relationship between this theory and the discipline of economics. Up to now, stakeholder theorists have tended to see this relationship in a critical light. For example, Freeman et al. (2020, p. 216) argue that stakeholder theory could have enjoyed wider popularity if the field of strategic management had been less dominated by “a narrow form of economic theorizing”. Bridoux and Stoelhorst (2022) agree that, “since its inception, stakeholder theory has positioned itself as an alternative to economic theorizing”, evidently referring to orthodox neoclassical economics which remains wedded to the widely criticized model of Homo Economicus (cf. Hodgson, 2013). It is important to recognize that neoclassical economics and the Homo Economicus model it espouses are often seen, by heterodox economists and some systems scholars, as exemplars of reductionist thinking, promoting a mechanistic perspective of the economy while overlooking its significant ethical dimensions (Capra & Luisi, 2014;Kapp,2011). In a similar vein to how Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968, p. 12) challenged the mechanistic approach of classical physics for its failure to address the essential aspects of life phenomena, Nelson (2006) 430 VALENTINOV contends that the mechanistic view of the economy ignores profound ethical dimensions of the real-world economic system (Valentinov & Roth, 2023; Valentinov & Pérez-Valls, 2021). Similar to von Bertalanffy, Nelson (2006, p. 19) traces this reductionist and mechanistic stance of neoclassical economics back to classical physics, which provided inspiration to the founders of this school of economic thought (cf. Valentinov & Roth, 2023). As Nelson points out, one critical consequence of this deficiency of neoclassical economics is its lack of comprehension of the human and moral dimensions of the economy, which are central to stakeholder scholars and fully acknowledged by Tektology, which, in contrast to neoclassical economics, embraces a relational perspective of human nature (cf. Buchholz & Rosenthal, 2005). This conception of human nature aligns with heterodox schools of institutional economics, viewing institutions not solely as constraints on human behavior but primarily as sites where socialization occurs and preferences are formed (cf. Hodgson, 2015; Nelson, 2006). Thus, by emphasizing the influence of capitalist institutions on individual thought patterns, Tektology regards stakeholder management as a component of a broader institutional system. While it implies a critique of Homo Economicus as a foundational assumption of neoclassical economics, Tektology underscores the nature of social atomism as a practical outcome of the capitalist system's operation and the possibility of countering this outcome by promoting stakeholder management practices. In this manner, a tektological perspective on stakeholder theory highlights its potential to bring about transformation within the contemporary system of capitalistic institutions. 8|PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE TEKTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE Beyond its contributions to stakeholder theory as such, the tektological perspective has the capacity to provide fresh ideas for corporate managers looking to implement this theory in practical contexts. These ideas sensitize managers to the existence of non-linear behaviors, a topic that has long been emphasized in the literature bridging management, complexity, and systems theory (Grewatsch et al., 2021; Meadows, 2008). The tektological perspective further enriches this literature by drawing attention to Bogdanov's concepts of “weakest links”or limiting factors that manifest within the evolving configurations of stakeholder relationships, networks, and systems. This perspective encourages corporate managers to recognize these weakest links as strategic leverage points capable of generating super-additive, i.e., non-linear, gains in productivity within stakeholder relationships. As Bogdanov (1984,1996) noted, super-additive effects primarily result from “overcoming individual resistances”, which are imposed by systemic elements, such as individual workers, within competitive environments. Acknowledging that these resistances stem from individualistic thinking habits cultivated in capitalist societies, Bogdanov demonstrated how collaborative practices can overcome habits and thus unlock novel productivity gains. We argue that the same practical consequences might accompany stakeholder collaborations in contemporary capitalism. Today's corporate managers can draw inspiration from these ideas to explore how they can “overcome the resistances”of individual stakeholders, thereby giving rise to cumulative positive outcomes. While stakeholder theorists have long recognized that stakeholder collaborations can result in ‘win–win–win–win–win’relationships, as described by Freeman et al. (2018, p. 3), the tektological perspective underscores the potential for non-linear effects in these relationships, contingent upon the control of emergent limiting factors that corporate managers should identify and address. VALENTINOV 431 Practically, the task of identifying and harnessing non-linear effects in stakeholder relationships invites managers to view their stakeholder relationships as a primary arena for the application of systemic management methods tailored to address complexity. Jackson's (2019) seminal text on how systems thinking aids managers in dealing with the complexity of decision-making contexts acknowledges that a broad spectrum of systemic management methods can be categorized based on the types of complexity and the nature of stakeholder constellations—whether they are unitary, pluralist, or coercive (Jackson, 2019, p. 164). Historically, systemic management and stakeholder management have been treated as separate domains within managerial practice. However, a tektological perspective reveals a deeper interconnection between these domains, as both of them are fundamentally concerned with aiding managers in navigating organized complexity. Accordingly, Tektology suggests that stakeholder management can leverage the extensive toolkit of systemic management methods. These methods, encompassing techniques like soft systems methodology and critical systems thinking, can be instrumental in cultivating a collaborative stakeholder mindset, ultimately fostering the emergence of “win-win-win-win-win”relationships, as envisioned by Freeman et al. (2018, p. 3). Conversely, the proposed tektological view of stakeholder theory can enrich the practice of systemic management. By recognizing the inherent stakeholder dimension, practitioners of systemic management can tailor their methods for optimal impact within stakeholder relationships. Thus, by accentuating the potential for non-linearity within stakeholder relationships, the tektological perspective offers a compelling bridge between stakeholder management and the world of systemic management methods. The tektological perspective is likewise instrumental in sensitizing corporate managers to recognize that trade-offs among stakeholder interests can be indicative of untapped collaboration opportunities. Freeman and his colleagues have long emphasized that while such trade-offs may exist, they should ideally be addressed and overcome (Freeman et al., 2020,2010). Bogdanov's insights may guide managers to heed Freeman's counsel by directing their attention to the inherent limitations of the existing institutional framework, which often falls short of fully realizing the potential for social collaboration in business. Within these trade-offs among stakeholder interests lie untapped collaboration opportunities waiting to be discovered. For instance, consider a scenario where a corporate manager faces a trade-off between meeting the demands of customers who seek high-quality products at affordable prices and upholding the rights of suppliers who advocate for fair wages and improved working conditions. Rather than viewing this as a zerosum game, the manager can interpret it as an opportunity to engage in collaboration that benefits all parties involved. By initiating a dialogue with both customers and suppliers, the manager can gain insight into their needs and expectations, explore new avenues for mutual benefit, and facilitate value creation. The manager can harness customer and supplier feedback, loyalty, innovation, or cooperation to enhance product quality and production efficiency, reduce costs and environmental impact, and enhance the satisfaction and well-being of all stakeholders. In this example, the practical contribution of the tektological perspective lies in revealing how win-win scenarios, which supersede the perception of trade-offs, arise through practical efforts to overcome the inherent limitations of the existing shareholder-centric institutional framework. First, the tektological perspective sensitizes managers to the possibility that the perception of trade-offs could stem from the existing institutional framework that prioritizes shareholder primacy, promoting short-term focus, profit maximization, and limited stakeholder engagement. Second, the tektological perspective invites managers to explore how these limitations could be dismantled through governance mechanisms that empower various stakeholders. This includes broadening governance structures, implementing multi-dimensional performance 432 VALENTINOV metrics, and enhancing stakeholder engagement mechanisms. In the suggested example, these institutional changes could entail managers working with a board that includes supplier and customer representatives. Together, they would explore solutions that uphold supplier rights while meeting customer expectations. Additionally, the company might institutionalize regular workshops with suppliers and customers to co-create strategies for maintaining product quality and fair pricing. These workshops would identify innovative ways to streamline production and improve efficiency without compromising wages or quality. Furthermore, company performance evaluations could be extended to include metrics on supplier satisfaction and product quality alongside financial outcomes. This shift would encourage managers to pursue strategies that balance these elements, leading to more sustainable and ethical business practices. The design and implementation of these institutional changes present a crucial practical application of stakeholder mindsets, potentially benefiting from systemic management methods. This leads us to a further practical implication of Tektology, one that holds relevance not only for corporate managers but also for business educators. This implication centers on how the cultivation of stakeholder mindsets both drives the practice of stakeholder management and also receives impetus from it. In this connection, we recollect Bogdanov's (1996) argument that systematic training in Tektology could benefit socialist decision-makers in uncovering collaboration opportunities that capitalist institutions might otherwise suppress. In a similar vein, we suggest that a more comprehensive education in systems theory, systems thinking, as well as systemic management methods could similarly aid corporate managers in the development of stakeholder mindsets. This educational framework should empower managers to identify collaboration opportunities and evaluate the varying capacity of surrounding capitalist institutions to realize these opportunities. In cases where institutions fall short, managers should be prepared to actively build stakeholder relationships to achieve this goal. While stakeholder theory has long emphasized engagement, consultation, and collaboration as central to effective stakeholder management, the tektological perspective offers a distinctive and far-reaching contribution by reframing these practices through the lens of systemic transformation and the resolution of organizational fragmentation. Rather than merely advocating for stronger stakeholder relationships, Tektology provides a structural and diagnostic framework that identifies and dismantles the deeper impediments preventing collaboration from reaching its full potential. This means that a tektological approach to stakeholder engagement does not simply prescribe dialogue and negotiation as normative imperatives; rather, it compels managers to adopt an analytical posture, actively diagnosing specific “weakest links”within evolving stakeholder relationships, enabling them to identify precise leverage points where targeted interventions yield disproportionate improvements in collaborative efficacy. Equally significant, Tektology illuminates the cognitive dimensions of collaboration, underscoring the role of stakeholder mindsets in shaping managerial decision-making. It posits that meaningful stakeholder collaboration requires an epistemic shift—a transformation in how managers conceptualize interdependence. Without such a shift, even the most well-intentioned stakeholder initiatives risk remaining superficial, failing to reshape the cognitive frameworks through which firms and stakeholders interpret their engagements. In this respect, Tektology challenges managers not only to reconsider what they do, but, more crucially, how they think. This, then, is where Tektology's practical significance is most profound: it does not merely reaffirm the importance of stakeholder engagement but reconceives it as an active exercise in systemic reconfiguration—one that demands not only managerial commitment but also an acute intellectual grasp of the deep-seated constraints that shape, and often inhibit, the possibilities for collaboration in contemporary capitalism. VALENTINOV 433 9|CONCLUSION In the present paper, we seek to promote the conversation between stakeholder theory and systems theory by exploring how Bogdanov's Tektology, as an eminent representative of the latter literature, sheds light on the possibility of bridging the stakeholder-system divide identified by Johnson-Cramer et al. (2022). We see a key contribution of Bogdanov's Tektology in illustrating the unique role of stakeholder management in the functioning of capitalism as an encompassing system of economic institutions. According to the tektological critique, capitalism tends to shape individualistic and conflictual mindsets, which do not allow society to realize its full collaborative potential. We maintain that stakeholder theory can accommodate this critique and thus approach human collaboration as a prime example of the organized complexity that can materialize if human actors succeed in making their mindsets less individualistic, conflictual, or reductionist in other ways. Improving human mindsets along these lines has been a key ambition of systems theory, and we suggest that it needs to be acknowledged by stakeholder theory as well. We argue that, considered from the tektological perspective, stakeholder theory is not only about business or a critique of the shareholder wealth maximization paradigm. Instead, it is about the more general task of promoting human purposeful collaboration, which is primarily exemplified in business, but may also include more encompassing forms of inter-sectoral stakeholder collaboration, for example, focused on addressing grand challenges. At the same time, we maintain that Bogdanov's Tektology equips stakeholder theory with an enhanced appreciation of the institutional nature of capitalism. For one, capitalistic institutions are shown to shape human mindsets, thus explaining why managerial mindsets are so ingrained and accordingly emphasized by stakeholder theory. Furthermore, we suggest that the collaborative nature of capitalism has to be seen as an institutional accomplishment, to which stakeholder management makes a direct and practical contribution. If so, then stakeholder management will be found to play a systematic role within capitalism to make it more collaborative and less conflictual. Thus, a key lesson that stakeholder theory can derive from Bogdanov's Tektology is that, despite being pro-business and pro-capitalistic, it is well advised to sharpen its critique of shareholder capitalism, which hinders society from fully realizing its collaborative potential. We see a promising area of further stakeholder scholarship in utilizing tektological and other systemstheoretical vocabularies to examine how stakeholder collaborations operate along non-linear pathways and achieve novel, emergent, and counter-intuitive outcomes. 10 |LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The major limitation of the applicability of Tektology to stakeholder theory arises from Tektology's association with Marxism. While this association is real and undeniable, stakeholder theory as such is obviously non-Marxian. Freeman et al. (2010, p. 230) clearly state that “[s] takeholder theory has been developed as a system of voluntary exchange for individuals within a capitalist economy. It is decidedly not a form of socialism or a set of social policies to be enforced by the state”. On other occasions, Freeman and associates reaffirm that stakeholder theory is probusiness and procapitalistic (cf. Freeman et al., 2007, p. iii), and discuss the idea of stakeholder capitalism (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 280). We want to keep our tektological interpretation of stakeholder theory true to this theory's spirit. We believe that stakeholder theory 434 VALENTINOV supports the tektological argument that capitalism can, in principle, accommodate much more human cooperation than the shareholder wealth maximization paradigm typically allows, but we maintain that, as such, this argument is not predicated on adopting a Marxian approach to capitalism or to stakeholder theory. At the same time, while there is an apparent ideological gap between Tektology and stakeholder theory, it does not preclude the potential for mutual influence. Both fields express concerns about how capitalist institutions may hinder the realization of the full collaborative potential. However, it's essential to recognize that the solutions proposed by Bogdanov and stakeholder theorists diverge. This difference should be acknowledged as a critical consideration for future research at the intersection of systems theory and stakeholder theory. On the one hand, we hope that the present article will stimulate responses from the community of systems scholars who could bring additional critical perspectives on how far the crossfertilization between stakeholder theory and Tektology can go. On the other hand, we believe that the conversation between the two literatures will lead stakeholder scholars to ask new questions, which may be particularly helpful for harnessing systems-theoretical insights for bridging the stakeholder-system divide identified by Johnson-Cramer et al. (2022). One question is how stakeholder scholars might detect and gauge the collaborative potential that remains suppressed by the currently prevalent regime of shareholder capitalism, and in what ways stakeholder management enables novel (and possibly system-level) modes of coordination of business activities that may unleash these potentials. We believe that stakeholders need to address this question because it highlights the practical economic foundations underneath the “win-win-win-win-win”relationships discussed by Freeman et al. (2018, p. 3). At the same time, these foundations likely go to the heart of systems-theoretical concepts such as emergence, selforganization, and novelty, which pose a challenge to the reductionist mindsets steeped in the shareholder wealth maximization paradigm. Another key novel question that can be usefully asked by stakeholder scholars pertains to the operational aspects of stakeholder mindsets. While it is generally accepted that these mindsets can help identify new collaborative opportunities, a critical aspect that warrants further examination is how these mindsets effectively mitigate the adverse effects of prevailing capitalist institutions, particularly shareholder primacy. It is worth recalling Bogdanov's observation that reductionist thinking is, in part, a consequence of economic specialization within capitalism. Stakeholder management does not negate the value of economic specialization, and it is entirely reasonable for members of stakeholder relationships to possess specialized roles. However, the pressing question is how to ensure that these specialized stakeholders do not succumb to the “excessive divergence” issue at the core of the tektological critique of capitalist economies. In more practical terms, what strategies can stakeholder relationships employ to avoid the criticisms that Bogdanov directed at price-based relationships in capitalism? In simpler words, what attributes make well-functioning stakeholder relationships resilient to the turbulence described by Freeman et al. (2010,p.3)inthe context of today's globalized and liberalized corporate landscape? If future studies succeed in addressing these questions, they will provide convincing illustrations of the tektological extension of the phenomenon of organized complexity to social collaboration under capitalism. If this extension holds, it paves the way for further research into how precisely stakeholder collaborations generate non-linear effects on corporate productivity and performance. Following systems thinking principles formulated by Grewatsch et al. (2021), future work can interrogate the implications of approaching stakeholder collaborations as open systems that maintain states of stability and low entropy in business environments that are turbulent and precarious (ibid, p. 4). There is little doubt that securing this stability may be an VALENTINOV 435 important form of value creation for stakeholders. Future work may approach this value creation as an emergent property that is irreducible to the contributions of individual stakeholders (ibid). Another avenue for further research is to explore how stakeholder collaborations develop accountability and information exchange mechanisms by installing multiple feedback loops (ibid, p. 5). Likewise, scholars may inquire into how stakeholder collaborations may enable sustainable business practices by incorporating hierarchies of nested systems that take account of biophysical limits of production (ibid). Finally, value creation potentials within these collaborations may exhibit counterintuitive dynamics emerging through self-organization and occasional regime shifts (ibid). All these and many other non-linear effects of stakeholder collaborations present specific implications of how their “organized complexity”succeeds in “unleashing people's creativity, morality, and motivation to cooperate”(Parmar et al., 2022, p. 579). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. ORCID Vladislav Valentinov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4247-0364 REFERENCES Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future. John Wiley and Sons. Allen, P., Maguire, S., & McKelvey, B. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of complexity and management. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446201084 Anderson, P., Meyer, A., Eisenhardt, K., Carley, K., & Pettigrew, A. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Applications of complexity theory to organization science. Organization Science,10(3), 233–236. https://doi. org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.233 Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals,11(1), 105–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0095 Berman, S. L., & Johnson-Cramer, M. E. (2019). Stakeholder theory: Seeing the field through the forest. Business & Society,58(7), 1358–1375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316680039 Bevan, D. J., Wolfe, R. W., & Werhane, P. H. (Eds.). (2019). Systems thinking and moral imagination: Rethinking business ethics with Patricia Werhane. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89797-4 Bogdanov, A. (1984). Essays in Tektology. Intersystems Publication. Bogdanov, A. (1996). Bogdanov's Tektology, Book 1. Center for Systems Studies. Bogdanov, A. (2016). The philosophy of living experience: Popular outlines. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/ 9789004306462 Brammer, S., Branicki, L., Linnenluecke, M., & Smith, T. (2019). Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement. Australian Journal of Management,44(4), 517–533. https://doi. org/10.1177/0312896219871337 Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2016). Stakeholder relationships and social welfare: A behavioral theory of contributions to joint value creation. Academy of Management Review,41(2), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2013.0475 Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2022). Stakeholder theory, strategy, and organization: Past, present, and future. Strategic Organization,20(4), 797–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270221127628 Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (2005). Toward a contemporary conceptual framework for stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics,58, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-1393-8 Burrell, W. G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Heinemann. Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping with paradox: Multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business & Society,42(1), 7–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0007650302250505 436 VALENTINOV Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895555 Dorobantu, S. (2019). Sketches of new and future research on stakeholder management. In J. S. Harrison, J. B. Barney, R. E. Freeman, & R. A. Phillips (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory (pp. 256–263). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108123495.017 Dudley, P. (1996). Back to basics? Tektology and General System Theory. Systems practice,9, 273–284. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF02169018 Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations,18(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103 Freeman, E., & By, R. T. (2022). Stakeholder capitalism and implications for how we think about leadership. Journal of Change Management,22(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2022.2037184 Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. Freeman, R. E., & Freeman, B. (2023). Business in a Post-COVID World: The Move to Stakeholder Capitalism. Journal of Human Values,29(2), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/09716858231167100 Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815768 Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. S. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., & Zyglidopoulos, S. (2018). Stakeholder theory: Concepts and strategies. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108539500 Freeman, R. E., Parmar, B. L., & Martin, K. (2020). The power of AND: Responsible business without trade-offs. Columbia University Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/free18850 Freeman, R. E., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2020). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society,59(2), 213– 231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318773750 Gare, A. (2000). Aleksandr Bogdanov and systems theory. Democracy & Nature,6(3), 341–359. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10855660020020230 Gorelik, G. (1983). Bogdanov's Tektology: Its nature, development and influence. Studies in Soviet Thought,26, 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00832210 Gregory, A. J., Atkins, J. P., Midgley, G., & Hodgson, A. M. (2020). Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. European Journal of Operational Research,283(1), 321–340. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.044 Grewatsch, S., Kennedy, S., & Bansal, P. (2021). Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking. Strategic Organization,21(3), 721–732. Hammond, D. (2010). The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory. University Press of Colorado. Hodgson, G. M. (2001). How economics forgot history: The problem of historical specificity in social science. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519813 Hodgson, G. M. (2013). From pleasure machines to moral communities: An evolutionary economics without Homo Economicus. The University of Chicago Press. Hodgson, G. M. (2015). Conceptualizing capitalism: Institutions, evolution, future. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226168142.001.0001 Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity: Responsible leadership for a complex world. Wiley. Jackson, M. C. (2023). Rebooting the systems approach by applying the thinking of Bogdanov and the Pragmatists. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,40(2), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2908 Johnson-Cramer, M. E., Phillips, R. A., Fadlallah, H., Berman, S. L., & Elms, H. (2022). What we talk about when we talk about stakeholders. Business & Society,61(5), 1083–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00076503211053005 Jones, T. M., & Harrison, J. (2019). Sustainable wealth creation: Applying instrumental stakeholder theory to the improvement of social welfare. In J. S. Harrison, J. B. Barney, R. E. Freeman, & R. A. Phillips (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory (pp. 77–96). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10. 1017/9781108123495.005 VALENTINOV 437