A Process Study of Evolving Paradoxes and Cross-Sector Goals: A Partnership to Accelerate Global Sustainability

IF 9.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Journal of Management Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1177/01492063241278803
Amanda Williams, John N. Parker, Steve Kennedy, Gail Whiteman
{"title":"A Process Study of Evolving Paradoxes and Cross-Sector Goals: A Partnership to Accelerate Global Sustainability","authors":"Amanda Williams, John N. Parker, Steve Kennedy, Gail Whiteman","doi":"10.1177/01492063241278803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-sector partnerships formed to address societal challenges are widely advocated and increasingly common. Joint goal setting is an essential phase in the collaborative process that can determine the course of a partnership. Yet, little is known about how cross-sector goals change and evolve because goal alignment between partners is often taken for granted. In this article, we qualitatively investigate a case of goal setting within a high-profile partnership across the academic and business sectors called Action2020, which aimed at accelerating global corporate sustainability action based on the planetary boundaries framework. We find that cross-sector goal setting is an iterative, multiphase process complicated by deep-seated sectoral differences that trigger paradoxes and conflict. Our main contribution is a process model of cross-sector goal setting comprising three phases: coalescing, protecting, and reconciling sectoral interests. Our model offers three unique insights that advance the cross-sector paradox literature: Altering the cross-sector goal can harness new opportunities of key turning points in the collaboration, shifting the opposing poles of paradoxes may be a necessary management approach to overcome collaborative barriers, and intermediaries may dampen the ambition of collaborative goals in order to temper paradoxes. We also contribute to the corporate sustainability literature and discuss the implications of moving from organization-centric to systems-based sustainability targets.","PeriodicalId":54212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241278803","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: 0

Abstract

Cross-sector partnerships formed to address societal challenges are widely advocated and increasingly common. Joint goal setting is an essential phase in the collaborative process that can determine the course of a partnership. Yet, little is known about how cross-sector goals change and evolve because goal alignment between partners is often taken for granted. In this article, we qualitatively investigate a case of goal setting within a high-profile partnership across the academic and business sectors called Action2020, which aimed at accelerating global corporate sustainability action based on the planetary boundaries framework. We find that cross-sector goal setting is an iterative, multiphase process complicated by deep-seated sectoral differences that trigger paradoxes and conflict. Our main contribution is a process model of cross-sector goal setting comprising three phases: coalescing, protecting, and reconciling sectoral interests. Our model offers three unique insights that advance the cross-sector paradox literature: Altering the cross-sector goal can harness new opportunities of key turning points in the collaboration, shifting the opposing poles of paradoxes may be a necessary management approach to overcome collaborative barriers, and intermediaries may dampen the ambition of collaborative goals in order to temper paradoxes. We also contribute to the corporate sustainability literature and discuss the implications of moving from organization-centric to systems-based sustainability targets.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对不断演变的矛盾和跨部门目标的过程研究:加速全球可持续发展的伙伴关系
为应对社会挑战而建立的跨部门伙伴关系得到了广泛倡导,并日益普遍。联合目标设定是合作过程中的一个重要阶段,可以决定合作关系的走向。然而,人们对跨部门目标如何变化和发展知之甚少,因为合作伙伴之间的目标一致往往被认为是理所当然的。在本文中,我们对一个名为 "2020 行动"(Action2020)的备受瞩目的跨学术界和商界合作项目中的目标设定案例进行了定性研究,该项目旨在基于地球边界框架加快全球企业的可持续发展行动。我们发现,跨部门目标设定是一个反复、多阶段的过程,而根深蒂固的部门差异会引发矛盾和冲突,使这一过程变得更加复杂。我们的主要贡献是建立了一个跨部门目标设定过程模型,包括三个阶段:凝聚、保护和协调部门利益。我们的模型提供了三个独特的见解,推动了跨部门悖论文献的发展:改变跨部门目标可以利用合作中关键转折点的新机遇,改变悖论的对立面可能是克服合作障碍的必要管理方法,中介机构可能会抑制合作目标的雄心壮志以缓和悖论。我们还为企业可持续发展文献做出了贡献,并讨论了从以组织为中心转向以系统为基础的可持续发展目标的影响。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.40
自引率
5.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management (JOM) aims to publish rigorous empirical and theoretical research articles that significantly contribute to the field of management. It is particularly interested in papers that have a strong impact on the overall management discipline. JOM also encourages the submission of novel ideas and fresh perspectives on existing research. The journal covers a wide range of areas, including business strategy and policy, organizational behavior, human resource management, organizational theory, entrepreneurship, and research methods. It provides a platform for scholars to present their work on these topics and fosters intellectual discussion and exchange in these areas.
期刊最新文献
Grammatical Redundancy in Scales: Using the “ConGRe” Process to Create Better Measures Industry Offshoring and Firm Internationalization: Complementarities in External Learning Dare to Fight? How Activist Hedge Funds’ Hostile Tactics Influence Target Firm Resistance We Are (Not) on the Same Team: Understanding Asian Americans’ Unique Navigation of Workplace Discrimination Developing Problem Representations in Organizations: A Synthesis across Literatures and an Integrative Framework
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1