Search results

Faced with institutional demands, organizations often create departments whose work is divorced from technical imperatives. This paper examines workers in one such department: Human Resources. Analysis of HR’s recent history and evidence from an ethnographic study of HR work highlight the institutional origins of conflict between HR’s established “compliance police” role and the “business partner” expectations of line managers. The paper outlines a theory of how organizational responses to institutional complexity contribute to persistent tension in HR and other heteronomous occupations.

A number of multinational corporations are striving to implement the sustainable development goals (SDGs) framework, aiming at addressing social, environmental, and economic goals. However, integrating the three aspects of sustainability across the 17 goals is very complex; multiple conflicts and tensions might arise when aiming at addressing such diverse elements at once, which in turn might prevent firms to effectively reach sustainability outcomes. Understanding the nature of such tensions and how to overcome them is therefore a key goal to ensure achieving the SDGs effectively. Given their very nature, multinational corporations are even more likely to experience such tensions on a daily basis than other firms – current international business (IB) literature, however, have overlooked the study of how sustainability-related tensions are experienced and overcome by multinationals. With the aim to address this gap, the authors propose how IB literature can be informed by paradox theory, which in recent years has become an established lens through which to investigate and theorize how sustainability tensions, conflicts, and contradictions are experienced and managed by multinationals. Accordingly, this chapter aims to advance the IB literature by suggesting how paradox theory can be adapted as a theoretical lens to examine the SDGs-related tensions present in multinational enterprises (MNEs) in order to foster the understanding of how multinational corporations address the current major challenges that undermine societal sustainability and how they can act to support a transition to a more sustainable economy.

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

The purpose of this paper is to describe how religious symbols might impede employees’ motivational cultural intelligence (CQ) in some international contexts, and how multinational managers might employ this knowledge to respond in a manner that mitigates risks to knowledge sharing.

The paper uses several theories (e.g. CQ, social categorization, expectancy, and contact theories) to develop a conceptual model about the nature of the risk to employees’ motivational CQ. It then draws on models of acculturation to explore how multinational corporation managers might respond.

It is conjectured that the salience of religious-based value conflict, learned both vicariously and through direct experiences, will adversely impact motivational CQ, and that the introduction of religious symbols may exacerbate this relationship. A framework of possible interventions is offered, and each intervention approach is evaluated in terms of how it may mitigate or exacerbate the risks raised by the model.

The proposed model requires empirical validation.

Multinationals are advised how (and why) to treat the preservation of motivational CQ as central to any intervention in the conflict over religious symbols.

An uninformed response to controversy over religious symbols could impede knowledge sharing and potentially exacerbate broader societal tensions (UN Global Compact, 2013). Therefore, this paper addresses a clear socio-economic need.

Controversy over the use of religious symbols in the workplace has generated considerable international media attention, but has been neglected by cross-cultural management research.

The purpose of this paper is to resolve a tension in understanding how universities contribute to knowledge-based urban development (KBUD).

The paper is a conceptual paper, which analyses the tension as emerging between the university and the wider societal activity. The paper creates a framework for combining insights from both those theoretical frameworks to better understand why universities might choose to contribute to KBUD.

The paper argues that it is important to understand the benefits that the universities get from participating in the KBUD. This can be through the unique tacit knowledge that emerges in the social innovation process, but their might also be value for the university in terms of two other variables, material resources and symbolic legitimacy.

The paper is a literature review and therefore is limited to raising a series of future questions and directions for research in the field, as well as to providing a lens and context for existing work.

There are clear implications for those seeking to improve universities contributions to KBUD. It is not merely enough for strategic leaders to come together and agree that promoting the university will promote KBUD: it is necessary to modify a range of processes within the university to ensure that a wide range of actors are able to benefit from participating in KBUD activities, and that it facilitates their own teaching and research activities.

For universities to make a substantive contribution to promoting KBUD, policy-makers must ensure that they do not create disincentives through universities’ teaching and research activities.

This is the first time that a paper has sought to bridge between theories of urban development and social innovation, and universities’ internal institutional and organisational dynamics.

Over the past decades, scholars advanced foundational insights about paradox in organization theory. In this double volume, we seek to expand upon these insights through interdisciplinary theorizing. We do so for two reasons. First, we think that now is a moment to build on those foundations toward richer, more complex insights by learning from disciplines outside of organization theory. Second, as our world increasingly faces grand challenges, scholars turn to paradox theory. Yet as the challenges become more complex, authors turn to other disciplines to ensure the requisite complexity of our own theories. To advance these goals, we invited scholars with knowledge in paradox theory to explore how these ideas could be expanded by outside disciplines. This provides a both/and opportunity for paradox theory: both learning from outside disciplines beyond existing boundaries and enriching our insights in organization scholarship. The result is an impressive collection of papers about paradox theory that draws from four outside realms – the realm of belief, the realm of physical systems, the realm of social structures, and the realm of expression. In this introduction, we expand on why paradox theory is ripe for interdisciplinary theorizing, explore the benefits of doing so, and introduce the papers in this double volume.

Impact investment is an emergent field worldwide and it can play an especially important role in Africa. The aim of this study was to examine how impact investors in South Africa manage the tensions between financial returns and social impact.

The research was based on 15 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the impact investment community in South Africa to understand the related challenges, trade-offs and tensions.

There are two opposing views expressed as to whether the tensions between financial return and social impact result in trade-offs. It is proposed that impact investors embrace this duality and seek to approach it through a contingency and a paradox view. The tensions can be approached by focussing on values alignment, contracting processes, engaged leadership and sector identification. The authors integrate the findings into a proposed framework for effective tension management in an impact investment portfolio.

This study was limited to selected South African interviewees. It would be valuable to extend the study to other African countries.

The issue of values alignment between investors, fund managers and investee firms is an important finding for practice. As is the four-part iterative framework for sensing the operating environment, defining impact, organising internally and defining the investment approach.

This study contributes empirical evidence to scholarship around organisational tensions, especially work in hybrid organisations. It affirms the value of a nuanced application of paradox theory. It examines these tensions through the lived experience of impact investing professionals in an emerging market context.