Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:26:43.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categorisation of organisation dualities using the Delphi technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2022

Roberto Biloslavo Open the ORCID record for Roberto Biloslavo [Opens in a new window] ,
David Alex Edgar Open the ORCID record for David Alex Edgar [Opens in a new window]  and
Roland Rusjan
Roberto Biloslavo*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Titov trg 4, 6000 Koper, Slovenia InnoRenew CoE, Livade 6, 6310 Izola, Slovenia
David Alex Edgar
Affiliation:
Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow School for Business and Society, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Roland Rusjan
Affiliation:
Vitrum d.o.o., Žnidarčičeva ulica 15, 5290 Šempeter pri Gorici, Slovenia
*
Author for correspondence: Roberto Biloslavo, E-mail: roberto.biloslavo@fm-kp.si
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the case of a non-traditional use of the Delphi method in order to explore organisational duality and reach a consensus on the 23 organisational dualities which allow for a classification into a three-tier organisational policy model (TTOP-model). The expert group was composed of seven experts from the field of management. The process ran for four rounds to reach the final consensus examining 25 dualities and eventually focusing them down to the final 23. In addition to their practical relevance of understanding the dualities, the findings also have implications for both the literature on strategic management and the paradox lens on organisational theory through an understanding of duality in terms of the TTOP model. This research not only advances conversations in strategic management but also helps to increase confidence when adopting the Delphi method for a wider recognition of the method within both interpretivist studies and paradox research.

Keywords

Aspirational managementDelphidualitiesstrategic management
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , November 2023 , pp. 1077 - 1102
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achtenhagen, L., & Melin, L. (2003). Managing the homogeneity-heterogeneity duality. In Pettigrew, A. M., Whittington, R., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C.J., van den Bosch, F.A.J, Ruigrok, W. & Numagami, T. (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 301–328). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: An embracing act. Long Range Planning, 36, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, W. M. (2009). Exploitation – exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organizational Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, R. J. (2014). Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beech, B. (1999). Go the extra mile – use the Delphi technique. Journal of Nursing Management, 7(5), 281–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biloslavo, R., & Hicks, J. G. (2007). Organisational learning and aspirational management in a knowledge-era organisation. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 1(4), 402–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw, J., Zimmermann, A., & Raisch, S. (2016). How do firms adapt to discontinuous change? Bridging the dynamic capabilities and ambidexterity perspectives. California Management Review, 58(4), 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleicher, K. (1996). Das Konzept integriertes management. Frankfurt: Campus: Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
Busco, C., Giovannoni, E., & Scapens, R. W. (2008). Managing the tensions in integrating global organisations: The role of performance management systems. Management Accounting Research, 19(2), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. (2017). Dynamic ambidexterity: How innovators manage exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons, 60(3), 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, Z. D., Donohoe, H. M., & Stellefson, M. L. (2013). Internet-based Delphi research: Case based discussion. Environmental Management, 51(3), 511–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
Collis, D. J., & Montgomery, C. A. (1998). Creating corporate advantage. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 70–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Cousins, K. C., Robey, D., & Zigurs, I. (2007). Managing strategic contradictions in hybrid teams. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(4), 460–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, T. B., & Ray, C. M. (1998). The telecommunication course in an end-user computing support program - research-based course content recommendation. Office Systems Research Association Journal, 16(2), 9–16.Google Scholar
Cruz, I., Major, M., & Scapens, R. W. (2009). Institutionalization and practice variation in the management control of a global/local setting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(1), 9–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, T. K., & Kumar, R. (2010). Interpartner sensemaking in strategic alliances. Management Decision, 48(1), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. G., Subrahmanian, E., & Westerberg, A. W. (2005). The ‘global’ and the ‘local’ in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, J., & Bobeva, M. (2005). A generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 3(2), 103–116.Google Scholar
De Fillippi, R., Grabher, G., & Jones, C. (2007). Introduction to paradoxes of creativity: Managerial and organizational challenges in the cultural economy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy synthesis: Resolving strategy paradoxes to create competitive advantage (2nd ed.). London: Thomson.Google Scholar
Dittrich, K., Jaspers, F., Van der Valk, W., & Wynstra, F. (2006). Dealing with dualities. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 792–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, D., & Favaro, K. (2006). Managing the right tension. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 62–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Eriksson, P. E. (2013). Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies. International Journal of Project Management, 31(3), 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, P., & Doz, Y. (1992). Dualities: A paradigm for human resource and organizational development in complex multinationals. In Pucik, V., Tichy, N. & Barnett, C. (Eds.), Globalizing management: Creating and leading the competitive organization (pp. 85–106). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fairhurst, G. T. (2019). Reflections: Return paradox to the wild? Paradox interventions and their implications. Journal of Change Management, 19(1), 6–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. In Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies (pp. 87–109). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farjoun, M., Smith, W., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2018). Introduction. In Farjoun, M., Smith, W., Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life: Perspectives on process organizational studies (Vol. 8, pp. 1–13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, A. S., Roy, F. L., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., Scaratti, G., & Kaneklin, C. (2014). Building social sustainability: Multi-stakeholder processes and conflict management. Social Responsibility Journal, 10(4), 685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, F., Michaud, V., Bentein, K., Dubois, C. A., & Bedard, J. L. (2018). Unpacking the dynamics of paradox across levels: Cascading tensions and struggling professionals. In Farjoun, M., Smith, W. K., Langley, A. & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes of organizational life: Perspectives on process organizational studies (Vol. 8, pp. 56–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldkuhl, G., & Lind, M. (2008). Coordination and transformation in business processes: Towards an integrated view. Business Process Management Journal, 14(6), 761–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. M. (2003). Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: Evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: A method for testing complex and multifaceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 112–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güttel, W. H., & Konlechner, S. W. (2009). Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review, 61(2), 150–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschhorn, F. (2019). Reflections on the application of the Delphi method: Lessons from a case in public transport research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 22–42.Google Scholar
Holsapple, C., & Joshi, K. (2002). Knowledge manipulation activities: Results of a Delphi study. Information & Management, 39(6), 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (1999). The world in two and a third way out? The concept of duality in organization theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(2), 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Wernick, A. (2011). Paradoxical tensions in open innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 521–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. F., & Leenders, M. R. (2004). Implementing organizational change in supply towards decentralization. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 10(4), 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, W. Q., & Blocker, C. P. (2008). Organizational capacity for change and strategic ambidexterity. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 915–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. (2006). Consulting the oracle: Ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(2), 205–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2016). The Delphi technique: An untapped approach of participatory research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(2), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, W. R. (2007). Knowledge management: a systems perspective. Int. J. Business and System Research, 1(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraatz, M., & Block, E. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K. & Suddaby, R. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Lacoste, S. (2012). Vertical coopetition: The key account perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. R. (2013). How top management team diversity fosters organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26(5), 874–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. (2014). The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 321–332.Google Scholar
Loo, R. (2002). The Delphi method: A powerful tool for strategic management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(4), 762–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2003). A Delphi study forecasting management training and development for first-line nurse managers. Journal of Management Development, 22(9), 824–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1988). The third question – The creative use of paradoxes in law and legal history. Journal of Law and Society, 15, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manderscheid, S. V., & Freeman, P. D. (2012). Managing polarity, paradox, and dilemma during leader transition. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(9), 856–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, S., & Macalpine, M. (1999). The search for reconciling insights: A “really useful” tool for managing paradox. The Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 642–651.Google Scholar
Millar, C., Hind, P., & Magala, S. (2012). Sustainability and the need for change: Organisational change and transformational vision. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(4), 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitroff, I. I. (1995). The age of paradox. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 748–750.Google Scholar
Möllering, G. (2005). The trust/control duality. International Sociology, 20(3), 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, T., White, A., Smets, M., Cowan, A., Athanasopoulou, A., Malloch, T., … McQuater, A. (2015). The CEO Report: Embracing the Paradoxes of Leadership and the Power of Doubt.Google Scholar
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ononiwu, C. G. (2013). A Delphi examination of inhibitors of the effective use of process industry enterprise resource planning (Erp) systems: A case study of New Zealand's process industry. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 16(2), 114–131.Google Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Osborn, C. S. (1998). Systems for sustainable organizations: Emergent strategies, interactive controls and semi-formal information. Journal of Management Studies, 35(4), 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, P. C. (2011). Role of manufacturing flexibility in managing duality of formalization and environmental uncertainty in emerging firms. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1–2), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pichlak, M. (2016). The innovation adoption process: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(4), 476–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–78.Google Scholar
Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putman, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2016). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413–440.Google Scholar
Quairel-Lanoizelée, F. (2011). Are competition and corporate social responsibility compatible? Society and Business Review, 6(1), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramirez, G. A. (2012). Sustainable development: Paradoxes, misunderstandings and learning organizations. The Learning Organization, 19(1), 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2018). Routine regulation: Balancing conflicting goals in organizational routines. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 170–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, A., & Raisch, S. (2015). The poor man's guide to paradox: Managing dualities in corporate turnarounds. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1. (no pagination).Google Scholar
Schwaninger, M. (2000). Managing complexity – The path toward intelligent organizations. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13(2), 207–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwaninger, M. (2001). System theory and cybernetics. Kybernetes, 30, 1209–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Portfolio.Google Scholar
Slaatte, H. A. (1968). The pertinence of paradox. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. (2017). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. C. T., & Graetz, F. (2006). Complexity theory and organizing form dualities. Management Decision, 44(7), 851–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium stability paradox. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(4), 534–547.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stitt-Gohdes, W. L., & Crews, T. B. (2004). The Delphi technique: A research strategy for career and technical education. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 20(2), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C., & Seibold, D. R. (2011). Managing organizational change: Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, B., & Lo, Y. J. (2014). Achieving alliance ambidexterity through managing paradoxes of cooperation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(2), 144–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2011). Duality theory and the management of the change – stability paradox. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(4), 534–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetenbaum, T. J. (1998). Shifting paradigms: From Newton to Chaos. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tse, T. (2013). Paradox resolution: A means to achieve strategic innovation. European Management Journal, 31(6), 682–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171–222). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Ulrich, H. (2001). Systemorientiertes management: Das Werk von Hans Ulrich. Bern: Paul Haupt.Google Scholar
van Bommel, K. (2018). Managing tensions in sustainable business models: Exploring instrumental and integrative strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 829–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fenema, P. C., & Loebbecke, C. (2014). Towards a framework for managing strategic tensions in dyadic interorganizational relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., Neubaum, D. O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. (2008). Culture of family commitment and flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6), 1035–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar