Paradoxes and Tensions in Interorganizational Relationships: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

This paper examines the literature on paradoxes and tensions in interorganizational relationships (IORs) and identifies how such tensions are managed in interorganizational settings. In a systematic literature review, we analyzed 95 papers published between 1997 and 2021 on the subject of paradoxes in IORs. The sample showed a variety of paradoxes occurring in different interorganizational contexts, such as knowledge sharing and protection, short- and long-term orientation, and exploration and exploitation. The diversity of such paradoxes has led to crescent interest in cooperation. Our main results show that contextual factors and management practices influence the balance between paradoxes. Although the particular context of each IOR may be unique in terms of balancing paradoxical elements, we identified a set of “pre-tension practices” and “post-tension practices” which may help avoid the emergence of tensions or reduce their adverse effects. The findings of our systematic literature review have also enabled us to propose future research avenues concerning managing tensions in IORs, for instance, the link between paradoxes and IOR performance.

Relationship Between Growth Strategies and SME Success / Failure: The case of SMEs in the Western Region of Cameroon

“…However, though this relationship is weak, this can also imply that while strategy is meaningful to SMEs it is not quite vital. As brought out above, the implementation of a strategy comes along with some amount of rigidity thereby limiting the amount or range of changes that can be made by the business (Lloyd-Kuzik et al, 2023; Marcos Vinícius, et al, 2023). It has been reported that one of the principal strengths of SMEs is flexibility and the ability to make rapid changes due to shortened decision-making processes (Benzidia, & Makaoui, 2020; Levy & Powell, 1998;Trzcieliński, 2016).…”

The Impact of Governance Tensions on Disaffiliation from Interorganizational Networks

“…This method is recommended when the phenomenon under study is a contemporary issue and the researchers have the opportunity to access contextual data with the intention of exploring how and why changes happened (Yin 2009). The case study method is also prevalent in existing literature examining governance tensions within interorganizational networks (Fortes et al 2023). Thus, the unit of analysis in our study is at the network level.…”

“…The concept of tension within the literature on interorganizational networks is multifaceted. Tensions are sometimes interpreted as paradoxes, as negative consequences arising from these paradoxes, or as conflicting relationships between two or more elements (Fortes et al 2023). Traditionally viewed through a negative lens, these tensions can also strengthen partnerships, enhance resource sharing, build trust, and improve regulatory frameworks when addressed creatively (Lee 2022).…”

“…These tensions have been well documented in the literature for some time (i.e., Provan and Kenis 2008;Roth et al Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 113 2 of 17 2012; Schmidt et al 2019;Fortes et al 2023), and are known to emerge from the competing demands of network governance. Tensions related to network governance manifest in four ways, namely (1) efficiency versus inclusion in decision-making; (2) flexibility versus stability; (3) internal versus external legitimacy; and (4) unity versus diversity (Provan and Kenis 2008;Saz-Carranza and Ospina 2011).…”