2014
DOI: 10.1080/0965254x.2014.914064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advancing paradox resolution theory for interpreting non-profit, commercial, entrepreneurial strategies

Abstract: , telephone/fax: 1 617 5523069 / 6677 (arch.woodside@bc.edu). Originality/value -Research has not so far examined the role of organizational identity alignment in examining paradox resolution among NPOs.Intended contribution -The NPOs engage in strategic choice for which continuous reference to enactment with core values is an important influence on strategic brand-community building behaviour.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Research adopting a paradox perspective is a feature of numerous management fields, including some highly relevant to an understanding of SEs including non-profit organizations (Lloyd and Woodside, 2015) and entrepreneurship (Link et al, 2015). The IJEBR 28,2 value of utilizing PT as the world-view for research is evidenced in the practical implications that have emanated from the extant literature.…”
Section: Paradox Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research adopting a paradox perspective is a feature of numerous management fields, including some highly relevant to an understanding of SEs including non-profit organizations (Lloyd and Woodside, 2015) and entrepreneurship (Link et al, 2015). The IJEBR 28,2 value of utilizing PT as the world-view for research is evidenced in the practical implications that have emanated from the extant literature.…”
Section: Paradox Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PT has been utilized in the study of numerous management problems since its earliest conception (Cameron & Quinn, 1988), including non-profit organisations (Lloyd & Woodside, 2015), haute cuisine (Leone, 2018), social enterprises (Mason & Doherty, 2015), digital innovation (Ciriello, Richter & Schwabe, 2019), green human resource management (Guerci & Carollo, 2016), corporate social responsibility (Bondy, 2008), consumer fanaticism (Chung, Farrelly, Beverland & Karpen, 2018), nursing (Kan & Parry, 2004), (Denison, et al, 1995), university hospital (Jansson, 2015), public sector organisations (Matthews & Shulman, 2005), mobile phones, (Reyes, Dholakia & Bonoff ,2018), family-owned businesses (Braun & Uhlaner, 2012), strategic agility and decision-making (Calbretta, et al, 2017;Lewis, et al, 2014) and even the role of fun in the workplace (Plester & Cooper-Thomas, 2015).…”
Section: Paradox Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the nonprofit context this works at two levels: behavior typical for a charitable organization and behavior typical for mission sector. At a generic level, typical behavior might include favoring collaboration over competition (Laidler‐Kylander & Simonin, 2009), demonstrating impact achieved with donations (Sargeant & Lee, 2004), and being a values‐driven organization (Lloyd & Woodside, 2015). At a sector‐specific level, for example, overseas development, typical behavior might include the balance between victim imagery showing the need and solution imagery showing the impact the NPO makes (West & Sargeant, 2004) or anchoring work‐stream priorities in the UN's sustainable development goals.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%