default: money, centralization of power in capitalistic systems

The very beginning of my journey to research (around 2020) porter 2005-creating shared value-(more individual perspective) devoting into business is a way to achieve happiness (success in one's own business or position) by contributing to others' happiness (life quality and quantity); same idea in social innovation and social entrepreneurship

The downturn TCE/AT/RBV-the reason for a firm to exist is optimizing efficiency, thus the rule of the game "organization" is to pursue as much efficiency as possible-simplifying the complexed firm to the matter of costs (yet it cannot resist but even the further development of these theories are towards the direction of the incalculable parts of business, capabilities, dynamic capabilities, knowledge, learning, culture, etc. This is the proof that these theories are not capturing the essence of firm. As scholars strived to making the theories more reflective to reality and relevant to practice, they found themselves keeping deviating from the original view of cost based theory of firm); it seems to suggest that values and stories are superficial but calculation of costs is the essence of firms' behaviors and differences (but the reality is very likely the sheer opposite)--it was a rather discouraging voice to me, because to believe them I must have to deny what gave me passion in the first place. At that period of time, my compromising spot was to explaining open innovation in a efficiency-like logic (community structure change for open innovation). Yet, I cannot resist but bent towards the norms, values, and stories in the community rather than what convenience build the community that way. and it's was also at this period of time I explored the potentials in aesthetics and theory of firm (as a revenge?) in Rob's class. To be fair, the TCE and followers does in a descriptive way explained (predicted) the existence of firms. What is wrong is that it is misleading if practitioners try to draw prescriptions from it.

the rising-exploration on "purpose" The essence of organizational purpose asked about the reason why the firm exist, the same question as the cost-efficiency theories were trying to give a name to firm as the contrast to the assumed default, the market. However, the early proponents of purpose (Ghoshal & Moran 1996 are the ones who articulate the issue most clearly) were suggesting to answer this question in the opposite direction. (the opposite direction, culture, value, identity, etc. is not unexplored, instead, there are already lots of rich thoughts and research done. But lots of them are still trying to find legitimacy in the cost theories of the firm. There lack a foundation of purpose to unite them)