Cultural differences in paradoxical tensions in strategy episodes

Abstract

In this conceptual paper, we ask: How does the larger cultural context influence the way that groups of managers deal with paradoxical tensions in strategy episodes? We focus on three sources of tension in the conduct and design of strategy episodesinclusion, formality and coordination/communication. We argue that in each case, cultural influences affect the extent to which these facets of strategy episodes are dealt with using a paradox lens or not. Specifically, in Western cultural contexts, managers tend to have a lower proclivity for adopting a paradoxical frame resulting in a separation of tensions in strategy episodes; by contrast, managers in Eastern cultural contexts such as China more readily adopt a paradoxical frame, and embracing tensions in strategy episodes. We suggest that, over time, nonparadoxical thinking likely promotes inter-episode plurality and planned emergence, while paradoxical thinking tends to foster intra-episode plurality and emergent planning. We contribute to a deeper understanding of strategy episodes as culturally embedded practices.

Inter-Organizational Paradox Management: How national business systems affect responses to paradox along a global value chain

“…Previous research has emphasized the extent to which interpretative contexts influence the ways that different organizations handle paradox (Knight & Paroutis, 2017), especially in different cultural contexts (Keller, Loewenstein, & Yan, 2017; Prashantham & Eranova, 2020). This is because paradox responses that may have proven effective in a certain context are not necessarily effective in a different context.…”

Unraveling the Philosophical Foundations of Co-opetition Strategy

“…Our aim is to understand how cultural influences mold different approaches to address the coexistence of competition and cooperation that leads to plausible distinctions in how managers engage in and scholars conceptualize co-opetition in Eastern and Western contexts (Prashantham & Eranova, 2020). First, we conceptualize co-opetition as behavioral in nature, [ 3 ] suggesting that co-opetition refers to publicly observable behavior and its link to publicly observable characteristics of the environment that lead to competitive and cooperative actions (Moore, 2001).…”

“…There is constant balance in all things (Lin et al, 2018; Smith & Lewis, 2011), and both competition and cooperation change from dominant to subordinate and vice versa. Managers inspired by Eastern philosophy interpret the coexistence of competition and cooperation as ‘ intrae pisode plurality’, in which one episode encompasses the coexistence of both actions (Prashantham & Eranova, 2020). Thus, they adopt a ‘becoming’ approach that is ‘interdependent and interactive’ (Li, 2016: 50).…”

“…Thus, they adopt a ‘becoming’ approach that is ‘interdependent and interactive’ (Li, 2016: 50). In contrast, managers inspired by Western philosophy interpret the coexistence of competition and cooperation as ‘ inter -episode plurality’, for which a sequence of episodes exists in which either cooperation or competition is dominant (Prashantham & Eranova, 2020). Thus, they focus on ‘being’ as a ‘fixed, certain, and complete status’ (Li, 2016: 50).…”

Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization

“…We are approaching this fragmented field of research with a paradox lens to identify which tensions arise in organizations that face localglobal as well as social-commercial tensions. In both literatures -on international business (Birkinshaw, Crilly, Bouquet, & Lee, 2016;Prashantham & Eranova, 2018) and on hybrid organizations (Jay, 2013;Smith & Besharov, 2019) -scholars have recently adopted paradox perspectives to uncover how contradictory, yet interdependent, demands can be addressed. At the same time, paradox scholars have expanded their analyses to studying tensions that are nested at multiple levels of organizations (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013;Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi, 2017).…”