Veranstaltungsprogramm der VHB Jahrestagung

The concept of paradox has emerged as a crucial lens for comprehending seemingly contradictory yet interconnected elements that coexist and persist over time. This lens has been particularly valuable in investigating various organizational domains, including the growing area of corporate sustainability. Scholars have explored the paradoxical tensions between economic and social objectives through multiple research streams, including the detective, sensemaking, and responsive uses of paradox. Despite much progress, we still lack understanding of the collaborative nature of navigating paradoxes within organizations. This study seeks to contribute to a relational approach towards navigating paradox examining how sustainability professionals collaboratively address their paradoxical conditions in work. In our qualitative study, through field observations, interviews, and informal conversations conducted over six months, we illuminate how sustainability professionals engage in different types of relational engagement based on how they construct their role and how they engage in everyday practices legitimized through distinct cognitive frames towards these practices. The different types of engagement then support the development of peer relationships, either as an inter-group relationship or and intra-group relationship. While existing literature has predominantly focused on individual responses to paradox, our research underscores the essential role that interactions and relationships between individuals play in shaping responses to paradoxical tensions. We discuss how our research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of how individuals collaborate to manage competing demands within their roles. Thereby, we uncover the contribution of a relational approach towards navigating paradox to support a systems perspective since it offers valuable insights into the interconnectedness between a detective, sensemaking and responsive use of paradox.

Scaling up is a key strategic challenge for social enterprises, organized as hybrid organizations, that pursue multiple, potentially conflicting goals (e.g., profit and social impact), because tensions arising from these conflicting goals become particularly salient in growth phases. Whereas differentiated hybrids create social value for their beneficiaries, integrated hybrids create social value with those beneficiaries, such that they either separate or integrate their social and commercial missions. Based on a qualitative case study of German social enterprises, we find that differentiated and integrated hybrids distinctively differ in their prioritization of scaling strategies, what kinds of scaling tensions emerge and how they strategically respond to tensions. Differentiated hybrids, for instance, primarily rely on increasing sales to increase social value, whereas integrated hybrids tend to focus on more indirect scaling by inviting others to replicate their innovative social impact ideas. We contribute to the ongoing research on social enterprises and hybrid organizing by proposing a theoretical model. Our model demonstrates the relatively stable nature of differentiation and integration over time and their role in informing scaling strategies, tensions, and response strategies. Additionally, we highlight the dynamic and interdependent nature of these factors.