Applicability of both/and thinking in international sustainable business studies

Lists

Tools

Gomez, J. M. and McKenzie, J. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2444-6264 (2024) Applicability of both/and thinking in international sustainable business studies. In: ECRM, European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies,, 4-5 July 2024, Porto Portugal. (In Press) (ECRM24)

Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only
· The Copyright of this document has not been checked yet. This may affect its availability.
262kB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Abstract/Summary

The purpose of this article is to provide a methodological demonstration making use of the both/and thinking (BAT) framework to perform analysis of intertemporal tensions. The BAT framework as an analytical tool is able to holistically examine complex multi-level business problems that involve tensions, contradictions and paradox that could be useful to others. Engaging the BAT framework in international sustainable business studies can be a challenging choice as it requires holistic understanding of the affects in the separation of contradictory elements across time and distance to shape research inquiry and direction. The approach considers that while paradoxes deal with contradictions, as a methodological process it enables a strategy for juxtaposing apparent opposites using an integrative lens embedded in BAT. As such, the use of BAT is discussed using a constructionist approach to gain insight and understanding on surfacing intertemporal tensions exemplified by the socio-business case study that is situated in the chocolate industry. The article draws on BAT primary and sub-themes and discusses implications and applications as a technique to frame the grappling of tensions. The findings are guided by the existing literature and the analysis from the empirical case study providing contributions in practice to further support the use of the BAT framework. Paradoxes examined in this article are based on affects for the themes of organizing, belonging, performing and learning. This article provides understanding of the findings to gain insight from an empirical and theoretical perspective to illustrate the practical implications of the methodological approach. As such, the principles of paradox theory are placed in the context of the BAT framework which are exemplified by making use of the empirical case study data to surface the potential applicability of the approach for future research. This article aims to contribute to the business and management methodological literature by demonstrating the use of the BAT approach and contributes with specificity in relation to the paradox taxonomy and the use of the BAT framework. Despite certain limitations, the BAT framework can be an excellent choice for qualitative sustainable business research that deals with contradictory demands.

Item Type:	Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
Refereed:	Yes
Divisions:	Henley Business School > Leadership, Organisations and Behaviour
ID Code:	115792
Uncontrolled Keywords:	both/and, business, methodology, paradoxes, sustainability

Deposit Details

References

Crane, A. (2012). ‘Modern Slavery As A Management Practice: Exploring the Conditions and Capabilities for Human Exploitation’. Academy of Management Review, 38(1): 49–69. Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J. and Krause, T. (1995). ‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research’. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 874–907. Gómez, J. M. (2023). Paradoxes of Sustainable Business: Balancing Ecological Priorities in the Fine Cacao and Chocolate Value Chain. Doctoral Thesis, University of Reading: Henley Business School. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2015). ‘Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework’. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. and Figge, F. (2014). ‘Cognitive Frames in Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Sensemaking with Paradoxical and Business Case Frames’. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 463–487. Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K. and Cacciatori, E. (2022). ‘Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems’, Academy of Management Journal, 65(5): 1477–1506. Lewis, M. W. (2000). ‘Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide’. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760–776. Lewis, M. W. and 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. Maitlis, S. and Christianson, M. (2014). ‘Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward’. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 57–125. Margolis, J. D. and Walsh, J. P. (2003). ‘Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2): 268–305. O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. (2008). ‘Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185–206. Reinecke, J. and Ansari, S. (2015). ‘When Times Collide: Temporal Brokerage at the Intersection of Markets and Developments’. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2): 618–648. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W. K. (2016). ‘Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward’. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64. Sharma, G. and Bansal, P. (2017). ‘Partners for Good: How Business and NGOs Engage the Commercial–Social Paradox’. Organization Studies, 383-4: 341–364. Slawinski, N. and Bansal, P. (2017). ‘The paradoxes of time in organizations’, in Smith, W K, Lewis, M W, Jarzabkowski, P and Langley, A (eds) The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox, Oxford, Oxford University Press: 373–392. Smith, W. K. (2014). ‘Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes’. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1592–1623. Smith, W. K. and Lewis, M. W. (2011). ‘Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing’, The Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–403. Smith, W. K. and Lewis, M. W. (2022). Both/And Thinking: Embracing Creative Tensions to Solve Your Toughest Problems. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review. Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. and Langley, A. (2017). The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, W. K. and Tushman, M. L. (2005). ‘Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams’. Organization Science. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0134. Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K. and Binns, A. (2011). ‘The Ambidextrous CEO’. Harvard Business Review. Whetten, D. A. (1989). ‘What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?’. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 490–495. Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V. and Paulraj, A. (2016). ‘Sustainability in multi-tier supply chains: Understanding the double agency role of the first-tier supplier’. Journal of Operations Management, 41(1): 42–60.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

University of Reading

CentAUR: Central Archive at the University of Reading

Accessibility navigation

Applicability of both/and thinking in international sustainable business studies

Abstract/Summary

Page navigation

See also

Footer navigation