Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability

IF 7.5 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Tulin Dzhengiz, Kai Hockerts
{"title":"Dogmatic, instrumental and paradoxical frames: A pragmatic research framework for studying organizational sustainability","authors":"Tulin Dzhengiz,&nbsp;Kai Hockerts","doi":"10.1111/ijmr.12290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Our purpose is to develop a comprehensive categorization of organizational sustainability frames. This is necessary because a unified approach that considers the organizational sustainability frames of different organizations (FPOs, NPOs and hybrids) is absent in the extant research. Towards this end, we undertake an integrative review of 158 articles and identify seven frames based on three objective functions: maximization of economic capital, maintaining natural capital and creating social impact. Of the seven, three are dogmatic, each accepting only one objective function as legitimate: economic, natural and social capital; three are instrumental, with one objective function as the ultimate goal and the others as necessary means; and the last one is paradoxical, where tensions between objective functions are accommodated simultaneously rather than eliminated. We contribute to the literature by introducing the ‘dogmatic frame’ category to the ongoing conversation on organizational sustainability frames. We also contribute by demonstrating that instrumental frames exist not only at for-profit organizations but also at non-profits and hybrid organizations. Consequently, we link the conversation in these areas with that of organizational sustainability frames. Finally, we problematize the growing attention on the paradoxical frame by discussing its suitability in different contexts and situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":48326,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Management Reviews","volume":"24 4","pages":"501-534"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijmr.12290","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Management Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12290","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Our purpose is to develop a comprehensive categorization of organizational sustainability frames. This is necessary because a unified approach that considers the organizational sustainability frames of different organizations (FPOs, NPOs and hybrids) is absent in the extant research. Towards this end, we undertake an integrative review of 158 articles and identify seven frames based on three objective functions: maximization of economic capital, maintaining natural capital and creating social impact. Of the seven, three are dogmatic, each accepting only one objective function as legitimate: economic, natural and social capital; three are instrumental, with one objective function as the ultimate goal and the others as necessary means; and the last one is paradoxical, where tensions between objective functions are accommodated simultaneously rather than eliminated. We contribute to the literature by introducing the ‘dogmatic frame’ category to the ongoing conversation on organizational sustainability frames. We also contribute by demonstrating that instrumental frames exist not only at for-profit organizations but also at non-profits and hybrid organizations. Consequently, we link the conversation in these areas with that of organizational sustainability frames. Finally, we problematize the growing attention on the paradoxical frame by discussing its suitability in different contexts and situations.

Abstract Image

教条、工具和悖论框架:研究组织可持续性的实用研究框架
我们的目的是开发一个组织可持续性框架的全面分类。这是必要的,因为在现有的研究中缺乏一个统一的方法来考虑不同组织(fpo, npo和混合)的组织可持续性框架。为此,我们对158篇文章进行了综合审查,并根据三个目标功能确定了七个框架:经济资本最大化,维护自然资本和创造社会影响。在这七种理论中,有三种是教条主义的,每一种都只承认一种客观功能是合法的:经济、自然和社会资本;三种是工具性的,其中一种是最终目标,其他是必要的手段;最后一个是矛盾的,目标函数之间的紧张关系是同时适应的,而不是消除的。我们通过向正在进行的关于组织可持续性框架的对话中引入“教条框架”类别来贡献文献。我们还通过证明工具框架不仅存在于营利性组织中,也存在于非营利组织和混合型组织中。因此,我们将这些领域的对话与组织可持续性框架的对话联系起来。最后,我们通过讨论其在不同背景和情况下的适用性,对对矛盾框架的日益关注提出了问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Management Reviews (IJMR) stands as the premier global review journal in Organisation and Management Studies (OMS). Its published papers aim to provide substantial conceptual contributions, acting as a strategic platform for new research directions. IJMR plays a pivotal role in influencing how OMS scholars conceptualize research in their respective fields. The journal's reviews critically assess the state of knowledge in specific fields, appraising the conceptual foundations of competing paradigms to advance current and future research in the area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信