This paper presents the case of a non-traditional use of the Delphi method in order to explore organisational duality and reach a consensus on the 23 organisational dualities which allow for a classification into a three-tier organisational policy model (TTOP-model). The expert group was composed of seven experts from the field of management. The process ran for four rounds to reach the final consensus examining 25 dualities and eventually focusing them down to the final 23. In addition to their practical relevance of understanding the dualities, the findings also have implications for both the literature on strategic management and the paradox lens on organisational theory through an understanding of duality in terms of the TTOP model. This research not only advances conversations in strategic management but also helps to increase confidence when adopting the Delphi method for a wider recognition of the method within both interpretivist studies and paradox research.

User experience (UX) focused business needs to survive and plan its new product development (NPD) activities in a highly turbulent environment. The latter is a function of volatile UX and technology trends, competition, unpredictable events, and user needs uncertainty. To address this problem, the concept of design roadmapping has been proposed in the literature. It was argued that tools built on the idea of design roadmapping have to be very flexible and data-driven (i.e., be able to receive feedback from users in an iterative manner). At the same time, a model-based approach to roadmapping has emerged, promising to achieve such flexibility. In this work, we propose to incorporate design roadmapping to model-based roadmapping and integrate it with various user testing approaches into a single tool to support a flexible data-driven NPD planning process.

Surprisingly, the strategic management literature has had little to say of an explicit nature on the topic of capitalism. However, the discourse on capitalism is vast in economics and many would say the writings of some economists on the topic of capitalism have been inordinately influential. Bearing this in mind, the differences between three world renowned economists on the topic of capitalism are examined with the intention of identifying where scope exists for strategic management to contribute to the discourse on capitalism. The paper concludes that strategic management is well placed to develop its own organization-centric discourse on the subject.

Despite their many contributions, each of the most prevalent approaches to leadership – the micro interpersonal leadership models such as transformational theory, trait theory and charismatic leadership, and the macro strategic management – has notable ‘blind spots’ and relies on biased or partial assumptions. Furthermore, the macro–micro polarization of major leadership theories overlooks important meso perspective processes, such as structuring, which leaders can use to attain a more compounded and sustained effect on organizational outcomes. The goal of this paper is to propose an integrative theoretical framework – value-creating leadership – which provides what is missing from the theory of organizational leadership. Value-creating leadership combines micro and macro perspectives regarding management and leadership along with a meso perspective to create a unified model of corporate leadership.

In this paper, we elicited and examined mental models of human resource professionals, regarding the interrelationships of important elements in shaping competitive strategy, for consensus or systematic variation, testing for HR's distinctive contribution at the strategy table. In order to examine their mental models, we collected empirical data from a stratified non-probability respondent sample of HR professionals in three stages: semi-structured informant interviews; free list and rank ordering tasks; and drawing exercises. Performing consensus analysis of respondents' mental models, we found that: First, as a group, HR professionals lack a robust, integrated HR strategic perspective; second, consensus views of labor relations practitioners and business unit generalists emerge as most distinctive and most people-focused. As one of few scholarly empirical examinations of HR practitioners' mental models on their view as strategic partners, this study challenges the normative calls among scholars and professional organizations for HR's participation in strategy formulation.

The assumption of strategy approaches like the resource based view is that, despite environmental constraints, ample room remains for organizations to differentiate on the basis of organizational culture (together with related human resource practices) to achieve sustained competitive advantage. In contrast, other perspectives assume that management practice and organizational culture mirror, or are constrained by, national culture. To the degree that such a constraint exists, within-country variance in culture should be small and between-country variance large. In statistical terms, the first question is: what is the magnitude of the effect size for country? The larger the effect, the more likely it is a constraint. Second, what portion of the country effect size is due to differences in national culture? My review finds that most of the variance in organizational cultures is not explained by country; of the variance that is explained by country, only a minority is due to national culture differences. As such, there may be more room for organizational differentiation than typically recognized. Third, under what circumstances will country and national culture effects be larger or smaller? I present a model suggesting more room for differentiation in countries having greater individual level variance in cultural values and related variables.

In recent years the Business Council of Australia (BCA) has drawn attention to the importance of the availability of a well-trained supply of employees for the Australian workplace. Specifically the BCA highlighted the benefits of a quality education imparting skills in the areas of collaboration, teamwork and leadership all of which greatly assist the effective practice of creativity, innovation and strategy. This paper makes a useful contribution to teaching practice in several ways. The paper links comments from the BCA to a significant and ongoing debate in the strategy literature on the best approaches to teaching the practice of strategy. The paper then demonstrates, with case studies from the RMIT University MBA and the Central Queensland University MBA programs, different approaches to how this can be done. This is followed by a critical discussion of the literature and case studies. Suggestions are made for future research and teaching practice.

Increasingly chaotic business environments of today demand organizations to be more resilient. While the concept of resilience is widely discussed in disaster (e.g., Wildavsky, 1991) and crisis management literatures (e.g., Manyena, 2006), the literature on organizational resilience is developing disjointedly in organizational studies. The literature review suggests that some factors that are suggested in the literature as components of organizational resilience are sources contributing to the emergence of resilience in organizations. This study proposes an integrative framework for organizational resilience and introduces a new outcome concept of organizational evolvability, emphasizing the heightened sensitivity and increased wisdom of the post-event organization. In this model, sources of organizational resilience are categorized as perceptual stance, contextual integrity, strategic capacity and strategic acting, and organizational resilience leads to organizational evolvability as its outcome. The proposed organizational resilience framework attempts to provide a synthesis of the divergent literature on resilience and aims to strengthen organizational resilience research for richer theoretical and empirical progress.