1 Introduction

Managers’ ability to handle contradictions becomes increasingly important in complex and fast-changing business environments (Graetz and Smith 2008; Putnam et al. 2016). In making decisions on strategic and operational actions, managers must consider contradictory alternatives such as long-term versus short-term operations, innovation versus tradition, or ensuring stability versus facilitating change. A shared feature of such decisions is that they require differing mindsets and skillsets to achieve both objectives. These “decision-making pairs” are often referred to as dualities (e.g., Birkinshaw et al. 2016; Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015; Farjoun 2010; Graetz and Smith 2008, 2009; Putnam et al. 2016), and many scholars have discussed the associated cognitive challenges (e.g., Smith and Tushman 2005; Eisenhardt et al. 2010). As alternative decision-making pairs in which both options are important but conflict with one another to some degree (Birkinshaw et al. 2016), dualities require managers to address both poles of the duality—that is, the opposing demands (Strutton and Tran 2014)—for ultimate success. When both poles must be addressed simultaneously, the duality constitutes a paradox (e.g., Clegg et al. 2002; Smith and Lewis 2011), denoting “a wide variety of contradictory yet interwoven elements: perspectives, feelings, messages, demands, identities, interests, or practices” (Lewis 2000, p. 761).Footnote 1

An underlying challenge of such decisions is that they entail contradictions (Clegg et al. 2002), often generating organizational tensions (e.g., Tushman and O’Reilly 1996). While inherently entailing conflict or paralysis, there is some evidence that such tensions can also have positive effects; for example, by stimulating organizational dialogue, they can enhance creativity and so become a key success factor (e.g., Lê and Jarzabkowski 2015; Lewis 2000; Gaim and Wåhlin 2016). In other cases, it may be preferable to learn to live with such contradictions, where there is little to be done to resolve them (Clegg et al. 2002; Smith 2014). In responding to dualities, managers must engage in paradoxical cognitive processes involving paradoxical frames (e.g., Smith and Tushman 2005). When pursuing contradictory but necessary competing agendas, organizations must, for instance, try to appear modern while preserving traditional values, or serve the community while protecting profits, or innovate new products and services while maintaining current offerings.

Although there are some helpful recent systematic reviews on dualities, including paradoxes and associated tensions or contradictions (e.g., Putnam et al. 2016; Schad et al. 2016), there are few empirical insights into their management in day-to-day decision-making (Graetz and Smith 2008; Putnam et al. 2016; for exceptions, see for example Smith 2014). In particular, “rather little is known about the nature and management of strategic paradoxes” (Smith 2014, p. 1592). Most recent studies of dualities and paradoxes have explored modern, technology-driven industries, including software (Birkinshaw et al. 2016), media (Knight and Paroutis 2017), Lego (Lüscher and Lewis 2008), and Fortune 500 corporations (Smith 2014). In contrast, our study explores the decision-making tensions encountered by marketing executives in a traditional, mature industry, where the challenge centers on the need to cultivate a traditional heritage while incorporating modern values and business dynamism, as in many traditional industries.

To bridge the identified research gap, our paper examines what kinds of duality marketing managers in a traditional industry encounter in decision-making situations, and secondly, what kinds of tensions arise from the contradictions inherent in those dualities. To address these research questions, we conducted a qualitative study in the traditional Austrian beverage industry. The study proceeds from the assumption that managers’ cognitions differ in terms of how they frame dualities, and that the ensuing tensions also differ (see Helfat and Peteraf 2015; Smith and Tushman 2005). To date, scholars have identified various responses to paradox (e.g., Gaim and Wåhlin 2016; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Jarzabkowski and Lê 2017; Lewis 2000; Smith and Lewis 2011; Poole and Van de Ven 1989), categorizing these primarily according to their negative or positive consequences (Jarzabkowski and Lê 2017). The present study focuses on initial comprehension of the given duality in order to understand managers’ decisions in a specific context and the tensions that ensue.

Our findings contribute to the decision-making dualities research stream, with particular reference to paradox and managerial framing perspectives. As paradoxical cognitive processes are thought to inform managers’ “ambidextrous” capabilities, our paper also contributes to research on organizational ambidexterity (e.g., Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008) by illuminating the early phases of managerial recognition of dualities (see. e.g., Birkinshaw et al. 2016). To begin, we review the current literature on dualities and paradoxes in managerial decision-making and the tensions associated with paradoxical cognitive processes and paradoxical framing of dualities. We go on to describe the qualitative research methodology, and the study findings are outlined and analyzed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the study’s contributions and practical implications, as well as its limitations.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Organizational dualities, paradoxes and decision-making

The growing interest in dualities in managerial decision-making is reflected in the increasing number of journal special issues and academic conference tracks devoted to the topic. In the organizational literature, a range of concepts have been used to describe the duality-related challenges of managerial decision-making (for reviews, see for example Putnam et al. 2016; Schad et al. 2016). Decision-making dualities emphasize the interdependence between contradictory elements (Schad et al. 2016). These dualities exist within a larger system of bipolar pairs, where the alternatives’ internal boundaries cause tensions and their external boundaries encourage synergies through construction of a united whole (Putnam et al. 2016; Smith and Lewis 2011). Dualities embody opportunities in terms of what to do and where to invest resources, but this becomes challenging when both poles require equal and sometimes simultaneous attention. In such circumstances, no alternative can be suppressed (Lewis 2000) at the expense of another; instead, the decision-maker must find a solution that satisfies the requirements of both poles. In such cases, the duality becomes a paradox (e.g., Schad et al. 2016). According to Cameron and Quinn, “[t]he key characteristic in paradox is the simultaneous presence of contradictory, even mutually exclusive elements” (1988, p. 2). These mutually exclusive elements might be viewpoints, demands, emotions or even ideas (Quinn and Cameron 1988). Ford and Backoff (1988) conceived of paradox as a thing that can be created and that appears through social or self-reflection. Smith and Lewis described paradox in terms of “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (2011, p. 382). In departing from traditional rationality and linearity, paradox-based thinking is seen to be threatening both emotionally and cognitively because it adds complexity, vagueness, insecurity, and ambiguity (Lewis 2000).

When managers or decision-makers adopt paradoxical solutions, they metaphorically “wear a paradox hat” and accept the salience of contradictory elements (Lewis 2000). Effective managerial decision making depends largely on the manager’s perception of the duality, which can be understood in terms of their cognitive framing process in the first phase of the decision making (Kaplan 2008; Tversky and Kahneman 1981). The present study explores how managers employ paradoxical cognitive framing (see Miron-Spektor et al. 2011; Smith and Tushman 2005) to make sense of various types of contradictory dualities.

For present purposes, we define dualities as decisions that come in pairs; a duality is described as a paradox when there is a simultaneous need to fulfill contradictory but interrelated demands (e.g., serving current markets vs. future markets). In these circumstances, contradictions emerge, causing tensions that increase the complexity of decision-making. Table 1 clarifies the differences between the key concepts as they are utilized in the current study.

Table 1 Overview of key concepts
Full size table

2.2 Cognitive framing of dualities

Decision-makers must be able to operate in dynamic contexts that are often characterized by ambiguous signals (Hahn et al. 2015). Knight (1921/1965) proposed that decision-making challenges are not a function of environmental dynamics but rather reflect managers’ inability to understand the meaning of such contradictions. Miller (1993) suggested that when organizations perform successfully, they begin to simplify their depiction of both themselves and their surroundings, including what they believe to be the causalities and antecedents of their success. The actions of managers and others in making sense of situations and deciding on the company’s best course of action can be understood in terms of cognitive categorization theory (Mervis and Rosch 1981; Rosch 1975). According to this theory, as decisions become increasingly complex, managers move from perception-based sensemaking to category-based sensemaking (Hahn et al. 2015; Weick 2010). Cognitive processing becomes schema-driven rather than stimulus-driven, and decision-makers begin to compartmentalize their perceptions into certain “types, categories, stereotypes, and schemas” (Weick 2010, p. 541; Weick and Sutcliffe 2006, p. 520).

Studies of managerial cognition suggest that managers make sense of abstruse and composite signals through individual cognitive frames (Hahn et al. 2015; for overviews, see Hodgkinson and Healey 2011; Porac and Thomas 2002; Walsh 1995): mental templates “that individuals impose on an information environment to give it form and meaning” (Walsh 1995, p. 281). These frames are generated and regenerated as managers label events and objects in terms of their observed attributes (Hahn et al. 2015) to reduce complexity. Cognitive framing does not happen instantaneously but is based on the individual’s past learning, experiences, and existing categories. According to Tversky and Kahneman (1981), “[t]he frame that a decision-maker adopts is controlled partly by the formulation of the problem and partly by the norms, habits, and personal characteristics of the decision maker” (p. 453). As the cognitive framing process reflects the characteristics of the decision-maker, the decision itself, and the associated contingencies, it may hinder or distort the decision-maker’s comprehension of the event; that is, it may “encourage stereotypic thinking; subvert controlled information processing; fill data gaps with typical—but perhaps inaccurate information; prompt one to ignore discrepant and possibly important information; discourage disconfirmation of the existing knowledge structure; and inhibit creative problem solving” (Walsh 1995, p. 282).

In the present paper, we build on the concept of managerial cognitive framing (e.g., Smith and Tushman 2005) to suggest that managers make sense of decision-making situations through their mental frames or “underlying structures of belief, perception, and appreciation” (Schön and Rein 1994, p. 23). In other words, the decision-maker’s beliefs, values and past experiences serve as a lens through which they formulate their personal world view, which influences how a given problem or decision is perceived. By adopting this cognitive framing perspective, we can understand managerial decisions as outcomes of this cognitive framing process, which defines how decisions are addressed and alternatives assessed. Walsh (1995) distinguished between the cognitive frame’s structure and its content, which together inform the individual’s interpretation of a given situation and their response to it (Tikkanen et al. 2005). A cognitive frame’s content relates to a particular domain—in the present case, the empirical context is marketing and new product development (NPD). While cognitive content “consists of the things he or she knows, assumes and believes,” cognitive structure refers to “how the content is arranged, connected or studied in the executive’s mind” (Finkelstein and Hambrick 1996, p. 57). In complex organizational contexts, inconsistencies are inevitable and cannot be eliminated (Smith and Lewis 2011; Smith and Tushman 2005). Cognitive frames therefore help managers to make sense of the decision-making context, and thus affects the managerial perception of the decisions. Figure 1 summarizes the role of cognitive framing in decision making.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Cognitive framing

Full size image

Cognitive framing enables managers or decision-makers to interrogate their personal interpretations of different decisions. Are the alternatives interdependent and non-substitutable? Does the decision involve dualities? What controversies or contradictions are embedded in the decision? What tensions are caused by pursuing dual objectives? In this study, we argue that the contradictions embedded in dualities serve as cognitive tension attributes that influence how managers frame their decisions. To make sense of these dualities, managers need to embrace paradoxical frames (Miron-Spektor et al. 2011).

Paradoxical frames stimulate paradoxical inquiry, in which a problem and its inherent contradictions are identified, connections between the contradictions are assessed, and alternative solutions are searched for (Lüscher and Lewis 2008; Miron-Spektor et al. 2011). Miron-Spektor et al. (2011) defined paradoxical frames as “mental templates individuals use to embrace seemingly contradictory statements or dimensions of a task or situation” (p. 229). As an example, they describe an employee who receives contradictory instructions for completing a certain task, requiring them to be well-prepared and organized while remaining flexible in case of last minute changes (Miron-Spektor et al. 2011).

Using paradoxical frames and paradoxical thinking, managers can accept tensions and accommodate conflicting but interrelated aims such as economic, environmental, and social concerns (Hahn et al. 2015; Porter and Kramer 2006; Smith and Lewis 2011; Smith and Tushman 2005, see also Godos-Díez et al. 2018). It has been argued that by embracing paradoxical frames, managers can improve their ability to cope with strategic contradictions (Smith and Tushman 2005) and to develop novel perspectives on existing problems (Miron-Spektor et al. 2011; Lüscher and Lewis 2008). Further elaborating on Hahn et al. (2015), Table 2 highlights the differences between paradoxical frames and single-decision frames. While single-framed decisions focus on an individual business case or problem, paradoxical framing is used to handle contradictions and associated tensions (Hahn et al. 2015). By way of example, Hahn et al. (2015) contrasted the profit-oriented business approach with a paradoxical frame that encompasses both profit orientation and social responsibility, which can be seen as conflicting or contradictory goals. We build on this idea to show how dualities complicate decision-making. In contrast to the simpler content, structure, goals, and logic of single-decision frames, dualities require paradoxical framing to incorporate opposite requirements simultaneously, which makes these decisions more complex and holistic. Additionally, single-frame decisions involve fewer tensions, as the decision commonly involves no conflicting demands. In contrast, paradoxically framed decisions generate tensions, as the decision-maker must fulfill contradictory demands. Coping mechanisms are beyond the scope of this paper but include for instance ignoring, accepting, accommodating, or transcending those tensions (e.g., Smith 2014).

Table 2 Comparison of single and paradoxical frames
Full size table

2.3 Categorizations of paradoxical tension

Categorization of the many tensions and paradoxes in complex decision making has attracted widespread research interest. In the field of management research, Quinn and Cameron (1988) proposed the paradox perspective to address the complications inherent in organizations. In recent decades, organizations have become more diverse and complex, with increasing scope for conflict and controversy (Clegg et al. 2002; Poole and Van de Ven 1989; Smith and Lewis 2011). Quinn and Cameron’s (1988) competing values of belonging-clan, learning-adhocracy, organizing-hierarchy and performance-market inform recent categorizations of organizational tensions. Based on this, Smith and Lewis (2011) developed a much-cited categorization of organizational tensions: belonging, learning, organizing, and performing (see also Lewis 2000; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Jay 2013; Lê and Jarzabkowski 2015; Lüscher and Lewis 2008). Across these four areas of organizational action, managers must decide what to do or not to do, how actions will be completed, on what timeline, and by whom (Smith and Lewis 2011).

Belonging tensions refer to conflicts in defining organizational roles (Smith and Lewis 2011). In their review, Schad et al. (2016) found that belonging tensions reveal competing identities within organizations—for instance, tensions between individual and collective affiliations or between cooperation and competition. Learning tensions arise between stability and change, old and new, and exploration and exploitation (e.g., Graetz and Smith 2008; Smith 2014): “between today and tomorrow or between looking forward and looking backward” (Smith and Lewis 2011, p. 388). Organizing tensions refer to the competing processes and designs that firms create to achieve desired outcomes (Schad et al. 2016; Smith and Lewis 2011)—creating tensions for instance between aspirations to alignment and flexibility (e.g., Smith and Tushman 2005) or between controlling and empowering employees (e.g., Sundaramurthy and Lewis 2003). Finally, performing tensions arise from different internal or external demands—for example, conflicting economic and social goals (Margolis and Walsh 2003) or different stakeholder interpretations of organizational outcomes (Jay 2013).

In our empirical study, we expect that managers would encounter tensions that broadly resemble the categories reported in earlier research. At the same time, we expect that tensions might also prove to be more context-specific, relating to the particularities of the environment in which decisions are made. Our aim, then, is to empirically explore the nature of duality-based decisions made by marketing executives in a traditional industry and how they perceive the tensions created by those decisions.

2.4 The nature of tensions

Organizational decision-making research recognizes the importance of cognitive framing for how managers interpret the organizational environment and plan responses (Plambeck and Weber 2009). Based on past work on strategic issue diagnosis, which shows that managers classify issues as either positive or negative (e.g., Thomas et al. 1993, see also Dutton and Jackson 1987), we propose that organizational tensions framed as positive triggers can be characterized as virtuous tensions while those framed as threats or hindrances can be characterized as vicious tensions (see also Dutton and Jackson 1987; Gaim and Wåhlin 2016; Gilbert 2006; Lewis 2000). These are fundamental framings that activate distinct cognitive repertoires, associated for instance with approach and promotion (positive evaluation) or withdrawal and prevention (negative evaluation) (Cacioppo et al. 1997; Plambeck and Weber 2009).

However, given the complexity of managerial decision-making dualities, this distinction between positive (virtuous) and negative (vicious) may be too simple to capture the variety of possible outcomes (Cacioppo et al. 1997). Instead, we would expect managers’ paradoxical cognitive framings to incorporate a broader range of logics in relation to conflicting demands. To better understand those logics, the present study explores the kinds of decision-making duality encountered by marketing managers in the traditional beverage industry and the nature of the associated tensions.

3 Methodology

In line with recent studies of managerial mental processing, strategizing, and emotions (e.g., Bachkirov 2015; Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015), we adopted a qualitative research design. Austria’s traditional beverage industry (beer, wine, lemonade, etc.) was chosen as a feasible empirical setting in which to explore decision-making dualities. While the industry has a long history and cherishes traditional values, it faces challenges in responding to novel internal and external demands to ensure its future viability, which are likely to entail decision-making dualities and associated tensions. It is reasonable to assume that the study findings will be of interest to other marketing professionals in other traditional industries and in other geographical locations.

The marketing executive’s decision-making role is an interesting one, as these managers operate at the intersection of multiple stakeholders and must communicate frequently with other teams, including sales, production, and distribution. Marketing managers can therefore be assumed to encounter dualities such as the allocation of resources between new and existing products and offerings (e.g., Kyriakopoulos and Moorman 2004) or the need to innovate while preserving traditions (see also Gorgoglione et al. 2018). As well as being responsible for marketing actions, they often play an additional role in new product development; in smaller companies, they may also perform as the company CEO. In general, the interviewed managers were considered to have the expertise to assess strategic and operational decisions and to describe the tensions associated with making those decisions.

3.1 Data collection

To explore the kinds of decision the targeted marketing managers have to make, a semi-structured interview guide was developed (Miles and Huberman 1994). During September and November 2011, 18 interviews were conducted, amounting to 979 min in total. Austria’s top producers of both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (see Table 3) participated in the study. Of these, four were small companies, eleven were medium-sized, and three were large enterprises. The majority of these companies were founded in the nineteenth century, and this is reflected in the strong heritage and long-standing values that guide their actions. We would expect this sample to be representative of many traditional industries now facing the challenges of renewal, especially in similar product- and brand-intensive contexts. Table 3 details the data sources; to protect their anonymity, the participating companies are labeled A-R.

Table 3 Data sources
Full size table

Secondary data sources were used to obtain contact information, and the largest 26 companies were contacted by email. After follow-up emails or phone calls, 11 interviews were conducted. The second round included smaller operators in the market; emails were sent to 23 companies, resulting in seven additional interviews. The 18 interviewees in the final dataset represented companies from seven of Austria’s nine federal states. All but one of the interviews were conducted at the company’s office or at a company-owned location.

Interviewees were first asked to describe their professional and educational background, the company they worked for, and their position and duties in the company. They were encouraged to describe the company’s products and why they thought these had been more or less successful. They were asked open questions about processes, interactions with different stakeholders in relation to existing products, and about launching new products or making changes to existing ones. Finally, interviewees were asked to describe their collaboration with stakeholders and to describe the challenges they encountered in this regard, including situations that created synergies or frictions. Follow-up questions were used to clarify responses or to seek further information.

3.2 Data coding and analysis

In total, the interview transcripts amounted to 357 pages; these were analyzed with the help of NVivo 11 software, using coding procedures suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Miles and Huberman (1994). To ensure the rigor of the coding procedure and to minimize single-researcher bias, investigator triangulation (e.g., Flick 2006) was used when analyzing the data.

In identifying the kinds of duality encountered by the participating marketing managers, the coding process comprised three phases. First, Researcher 1 created nodes for any quotes that referred to a decision-making situation of any kind where tensions were encountered, and these were assigned temporary node labels, consisting of a phrase or multiple sentences. The coded tensions were then reviewed again with Researcher 2, who played the role of devil’s advocate, questioning the nodes suggested by Researcher 1. Only tensions that served as evidence of a decision-making duality were retained. Some nodes were merged, and nodes that did not entail a dichotomy or described only general issues or fuzzy problems were deleted. The final analysis included only quotes that clearly illustrated decision-making points; all quotes describing the same event or issue were omitted. During this step, we continued to merge and delete nodes. All those included in the final dataset referred to duality-related decisions involving paradoxical framing.

During the second coding phase, each duality (i.e., decision-pair) was labeled and grouped. Adopting a data-driven approach, we created categories of tensions that would be as heterogeneous as possible between groups and as homogeneous as possible within groups. This process produced the categories of identity ambiguity, renewal dynamics, and competing coalitions. Following in-depth discussion and multiple iterations, each node in the final dataset was assigned to one of these three categories. As part of this process, node labels were reconsidered, and labels were created for the opposite poles of the duality for added clarity and transparency.

In the third and final phase of coding, we defined the nature of the tensions associated with each duality as per the interviewee’s description. First, we scanned for vicious and virtuous tensions, referring to the existing literature on duality-related tensions. However, over the course of the analysis, three further codes emerged to describe the nature of tensions that were not adequately captured by the vicious-virtuous distinction. As detailed in the next section, these three additional codes referred to dialectical, ambivalent, and neutral tensions. Figure 2 describes the step-wise coding process.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Data coding procedure

Full size image

4 Findings

Our findings illuminate the decision dualities encountered by marketing executives in a traditional industry that aspires to appearing modern and innovative while nurturing traditional values and heritage. The study provides an overview of dualities related to this and other challenges, including identity, relationships, and responsibilities. Our analysis revealed three distinct, context-specific categories of tensions that are of particular relevance in the research setting.

4.1 Overview of findings

The identified categories of tensions were labeled identity ambiguity (7 types of duality), renewal dynamics (4 types of duality), and competing coalitions (3 types of duality). Our analysis of these tensions also revealed differences among managers in terms of how they perceive these tensions. In addition to evidence of the anticipated vicious and virtuous tensions, the analysis also revealed the presence of dialectical, ambivalent, and neutral tensions associated with duality-related decisions. Overall, the findings indicate major differences between managers in terms of how they frame and perceive these tensions. Figure 3 summarizes our findings regarding the framing of duality-related tensions.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Framing of duality-related tensions: Overview of the findings

Full size image

Virtuous tensions—those perceived as positive, empowering, or creativity-enhancing—were most often associated with the category identity ambiguity. Vicious tensions—those associated with negative feelings, frustration, and pressure—were most prevalent in the categories renewal dynamics and competing coalitions.

However, the majority of tensions were perceived as neither vicious nor virtuous; instead, they often exhibited a more complex, dynamic character, reflecting managers’ urge to respond simultaneously and in different ways to opposite demands. These tensions were labeled dialectical, and we found these to be most typically associated with decision making (especially in the identity ambiguity and renewal dynamics categories). In addition, we discovered that some tensions in the identity ambiguity category evoked a simultaneous negative–positive attitude towards the duality, and we labelled these ambivalent tensions (cf. Ashforth et al. 2014). These tensions surfaced in relation to dualities associated with gender identity and corporate social responsibility. Finally, the coding process also identified neutral tensions, about which the manager expresses neither anxiety nor excitement but accepts as “just the way it is”—that is, as part of the business.

The next sections describe the context-specific categories of tensions that emerged from the empirical data. In each case, we also identify the nature of that tension (vicious, virtuous, dialectical, ambivalent, neutral), supported by direct quotes and content analysis results (Figs. 4, 5, 6).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Analysis of the identity ambiguity category of tensions

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Analysis of renewal dynamics

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Analysis of competing coalitions

Full size image

4.2 Identity ambiguity

A first group of tensions was labeled identity ambiguity. Here, the decision-making pairs refer to confusion or lack of clarity with regard to roles and responsibilities. The dualities in this group reflect the following questions: “What is my identity and role in this company?” What is the role of others?” “What are the values that guide our decision-making?” The dualities identified in this group included company identity (nurturing tradition vs. responding to trends); gender identity (masculine vs. feminine); decision-making heuristics (emotions vs. facts); organizational role (defined vs. vague); organizational responsibilities (integrated vs. separated); strategy building (subjective vs. objective); and corporate social responsibility (financial vs. social goals).

Identity ambiguity was the largest category in terms of types of duality; within the identity ambiguity category, the most common items related to company identity, strategy building, and corporate social responsibility. In earlier paradox research, Smith and Lewis (2011) posited the existence of tensions between individual and collective belonging, where individuals and groups seek distinctiveness and homogeneity. Many of the dualities in the identity ambiguity category can be said to resemble items in that belonging category (see also Quinn and Cameron 1988).

In the category of company identity, interviewees referred to the duality of nurturing tradition versus responding to trends. Given the traditional industry context, with companies up to several centuries old, this finding is not surprising. Managers reported vacillating between retaining the heritage and attempts to modernize for fear of appearing old-fashioned. This is typical of paradoxical cognitive framing where the tension is mostly perceived as dialectical and managers look for a mixed response to address both demands.

[…] as a brewery, an old brewery—and breweries are always very traditional anyway —of course, we are caught up in this tradition, this story that “this has always existed.” On the other hand, we also want to be modern. […] This is actually the bigger problem. Marketing Specialist Company O (dialectical)

Strategy building was the second largest group of tensions, entailing the opposite poles of subjectivity versus objectivity. Managers tried to find a balance between subjective and objective knowledge when making decisions. The challenges were perceived as dialectical and related to relying on others’ expertise versus making decisions on one’s own.

We are collaborating with an advertising agency. Every few years, we work with different agencies to get new ideas, so that […] we don’t lose sight of the business. […] When I talk […] about unfamiliar products, I have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Having dealt with the same products for 20 years […] I cannot judge that. That’s why I always need someone from outside who has this sense, who is not blind to this business […] You cannot be objective about your own children. CEO Company G (dialectical)

Interestingly, in relation to corporate social responsibility, where the main conflict is between financial and social goals, tensions were framed mostly as ambivalent or dialectical. Interviewees were puzzled by this duality group, and the quotes reflect the unpredictability of consumer preferences for ethical or green choices or the need to track the entire supply chain for the ingredients used in packaging materials.

The big theme is sustainability. I think this is automatically the case for family businesses, as you inevitably bear more responsibility. You take more responsibility for your employees and for your products. You lead from an ethical stance. Community is important, including cultural and sport-related aspects. We make decisions [on the basis that] these are important for the community but perhaps not absolutely justifiable financially. CEO Company H (ambivalent)

Other firms do it; I see it as a drawback [that we don’t]. It might be good marketing to publish an article in the local newspaper and let everyone know that [the company] has done this and that. We don’t really have that focus; for me, it has always been a bit like bragging. Then again, perhaps one shouldn’t see it like that. I know firms that publish an article every week. I think, in the background, it looks completely different, but the main thing is that you can show “green fingers.” CEO Company R (dialectical)

The ambivalent nature of tensions surfaced most clearly in the identity ambiguity category in relation to corporate social responsibility and gender identity.

I’d say for me, at the time when I started, it was of course a challenge being a woman in a masculine domain, in the beer industry. […] I’d say in [this region] I’m the only woman in this position. […] There aren’t many women in management positions in breweries—although in marketing, I think it makes no difference whether you’re a man or a woman. Women probably just think differently than men do in relation to visuals, corporate image—the appearance of the brand. I wouldn’t say better, but different. […] I can’t brew beer; that’s done by someone else. But the rest, to bring the beer to the man or woman—as a woman, I’d say it was definitely a bigger challenge, but it worked well. Head of Marketing Company N (ambivalent)

The tensions associated with the organizational responsibilities duality (integrated vs. separated) were described as neutral in all four interviews where this duality appeared. While comparing their multiple roles to “circus performers,” “strategic fighters in a war,” having a “dual function” (Company H), or describing their daily work as “dealing with complexity” (Company B), they seemed to accept the complexity of the role as part of their job, labeling it as neutral and learning to live with it (Lewis 2000).

Maintaining a department or a company is ultimately comparable to circus performers, balancing several plates at different bars and ensuring that the rotation is so fast that it just does not fall off. And once you have initiated any plate, you have to rush to the next plate anyway so that it does not fall down. Head of Marketing Company B (neutral)

We screened and made assumptions about the strategies of two competitors, what kinds of strategy they have. So I tell you, a good marketing person must also be a bit of a strategic war fighter. […] This is no different from a field marshal who says “Ok, I’m here, these are my two enemies, and I want to win. What should I do?” So, I have to know what can happen, and then I have to develop my own strategy. There is nothing else. CEO Company E (neutral)

Organizational role (defined vs. vague) was mentioned by just one manager (Company I), who framed it as vicious. Nevertheless, this delivers an important message, capturing the “spirit” of the entire identity ambiguity category; when roles or responsibilities are not clearly defined or allocated, the ensuing friction among co-workers may trigger an unwanted chain reaction, in which a single negative occurrence obstructs the further steps of the process.

The heads of department, the winemaker, the IT manager, and so on, are given a fairly free hand. I sometimes criticize this because things sometimes remain undone simply because no one feels responsible. Personally, I would gladly allocate certain tasks to individual people, with a completion date. […] [But] that’s our corporate culture. Marketing Manager Company I (vicious)

Decision-making heuristics (emotions vs. facts) relate to making decisions that balance emotions and rational thinking. Even in for-profit companies, profit was not always seen as the priority, which would override the fun of doing business.

We do things that are fun for us—sometimes in spite of losses. With certain products […] we want to do it without accurate cost accounting. […] If we want to do it, then it will be done, no matter what. We don’t need to justify it to anyone afterwards. Marketing Manager Company M (virtuous)

Figure 4 summarizes the content of the identity ambiguity category.

4.3 Renewal dynamics

A second group of tensions was categorized as renewal dynamics. These dualities relate to March’s (1991) dynamics of exploration versus exploitation and other renewal-related contradictions. The dualities identified in this category were integration of creative tasks into routine work (creativity vs. routine), continuous innovation (planned vs. serendipitous), degree of planning (improvisation vs. precision), and resource planning (slack vs. structured). In fact, this category partly resembles the learning tensions identified by Smith and Lewis (2011), which play a role in dynamic system change, renewal, and innovation. The duality groups were similar in size, the largest being continuous innovation.

An interesting duality, in which tensions were seen as dialectical, continuous innovation referred to the role of unpredictable future trends and serendipitous innovation. Although breaking the routine and switching on the creative mindset is challenging for managers, ideas may emerge by chance and when least expected.

That’s why I smile… Sometimes, we create faster than actually makes sense because we get some idea and I already have a marketing concept. And my boss has not yet calculated anything, so there’s no calculation, and […] you just want to make it and engage with things that are fun, but you eventually land back to the ground—which of course happens to us, too. We don’t have such fixed sequences in a product launch, but we were of course in “flow,” and everything was so meshed. But it is not the case [in our company] that one submits an idea and then there’s a committee and then it is decided and feedback is given—we don’t have anything like that. Marketing Specialist Company O (dialectical)

It’s natural, this is also an issue for next year; how do you develop a product further, and what do you do with the product? That is definitely an issue. And then you always think, what can I do for it? Then you say, OK, when the product is here, then it’s here, and you always have to develop something new for it. That’s definitely an issue that is pondered time and time again. Head of Marketing Company N (dialectical)

The category of integration of creative tasks into routine work was among the most prevalent challenges and was generally perceived as vicious. Organizations are resistant to change and tend to converge toward familiar routines. It follows that many organizations (and individuals) tend to emphasize exploitation activities—that is, familiar routines and procedures—rather than engaging in exploration (searching for innovation and novelty) (March 1991).

[…] the biggest [challenge] is to be creative. That is the biggest challenge, on top of everything that ends up on my desk, to think creatively to the everyday routine. Because marketing is a very creative field, and to leave room for this creativity, to have the time to come up with creative concepts, to develop them—that is, for sure, one of the biggest challenges. Head of Marketing Company L (vicious)

Degree of planning refers to the extent to which managers improvise as opposed to engaging in detailed planning. Organizational renewal is often interfered with by interruptions and balancing importance and urgency, which is seen to hinder the progress.

Much [is done on an] ad hoc basis. Quite frankly, yes […]I have a line that I follow, and that is constantly torpedoed from left and right. So, the line then becomes like this [indicates “serpentine”]. Whichever torpedo is shooting the most powerfully determines what I have to do. That is not always so, but in principle, I share my day […] five hours of my day, I plan. In the morning, I write down what I have to do today, and the rest I leave open because I know that things will always come up anyway. And in the evening, I take three out of the six things I wrote down and write them up for the next day again because I have not reached them. This is now my personal story. Marketing Manager Company I (vicious)

Not surprisingly, resource planning was perceived as a pleasant task when the resource pool was abundant and as challenging when resources (such as time) were scarce. This tension was described as dialectical, given the simultaneous need to allocate resources to new product launches while running current operations.

They need considerable resources, not only in the beginning but from product development until everything is ready to go to market. But resources are also needed for market entry, which is not done in a month but takes one, two or three years, when we […]look at innovations. That means you probably need a relatively large budget for a relatively small volume. That means there is definitely a challenge: how much money I need in order to cover my daily business versus how can I support new products as intensively as possible. And that automatically creates a certain limit in relation to new launches. Head of Marketing Company A (dialectical)

Renewal dynamics resembles March’s (1991) idea of exploration and exploitation. Organizations put a lot of effort into exploiting their existing competencies, but this also diminishes their ability to search for novel opportunities in the operating environment to use their creativity to the fullest and hinders their ability to learn. In addition, companies with a passion for exploring new things can fall into a trap; by spreading their resources to find new opportunities, they become poor at learning and utilizing existing knowledge. In these circumstances, an organization is unable to address both poles of the paradox (Clegg et al. 2002). Figure 5 summarizes the tensions in the renewal dynamics category.

4.4 Competing coalitions

The third category was labeled competing coalitions. The dualities within this group refer to colliding internal and external endeavors. This group was the smallest of the identified groups. The dualities in this category were goal alignment (mutual vs. conflicting), intra-organizational relationships (agreement vs. disagreement), and stakeholders’ demands (internal vs. external preferences). This group also resembles Smith and Lewis’s (2011) performing tensions, which relate to the differing and often conflicting demands of internal and external stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Smith and Lewis 2011). Similarly, Lê and Jarzabkowski (2015) described the process conflict arising from disagreement about task logistics such as delegation and role assignment, deadline agreement, and time management.

The largest duality group related to goal alignment, often involving contradictory goals that impede processes and cause clashes between marketing and production, purchasing, or packaging. Different departments run on asynchronous cycles, pursuing their own targets without appropriate communication or joint decision-making with other units, so delaying or interrupting cross-departmental processes and causing tensions that are seen mostly as vicious.

[…] I continually hear that “it’s bad” or “we need to do something new.” And the boss says, “Folks, check the revenues—they’re rising, so it can’t be that bad.” And that is the classic tension: that [means that] many people from outside say, “we need to change that”, “it doesn’t fit us”, “we have to do that”, “we still need to do that” […] We in marketing have to decide and say “we forgot”, or we say, “yes, we will take care of it” and put it in the drawer, or “true, we have to do something”. And that’s the great challenge for us, to recognize what is important of the many pages that we get as feedback. Marketing Manager Company I (vicious)

And that is another contradiction, of course, that the sales department would like to bring a new product onto the market every two months and try it out. […] Because then the company is innovative —it’s great, they can always come up with something new. And there is certainly a conflict with the production department because they say, “This is madness, we cannot start something new again—and then we fill a few pallets, and we don’t know whether it will go anywhere.” It’s such a back and forth thing. CEO Company H (vicious)

Tensions arising from the duality of intra-organizational relationships were perceived as vicious. Performance difficulties due to frictions in human relationships or interpersonal conflict have been widely discussed in the conflict management literature (e.g., Filley 1975).

Where people work together, there are tensions. And it is very important to me to always remind people, “Hello, we are a family. We are a company. We are all together.” […] I promise you one thing: You will spend a lifetime pursuing this task. Marketing Manager Company I (vicious)

One of my biggest priorities when I took the job with [Company C] was to integrate all departments better because there were two marketing teams who did not always agree on everything, as the bosses didn’t necessarily like each other that much. There were always tensions, and it was not very effective. Marketing Director Company C (vicious)

Stakeholders’ demands were mainly experienced as dialectical, where the decision-maker tries to please all parties, but resource scarcity prevents this. The dialectical response to tension arises when decisions are made against a manager’s will or preference, or as in most cases, against stakeholders’ preferences, when this best serves the company’s interests and financial purposes (Company J). However, this tension was also perceived as neutral when the duality already incorporates a solution (Company G).

That means we have more than 85% [brand name]. In reality, we could concentrate on [brand name]. It would certainly optimize costs and would be more efficient. On the other hand, as a medium-sized brewery in the Austrian market, it is ultimately important for us to offer a variety of beers. And for this, we need and want to become active in the field of innovations, beer innovations […] and that’s […] the dichotomy. That is, basically for cost reasons […] we could concentrate on [brand]. On the other hand, we want to offer […] a good variety of beers. Marketing Manager Company J (dialectical)

[We collaborate] with sales very closely, of course, because the best marketing is useless if the sales representative says “What have they done up there again?” […] So it is very important to inspire and to convince [the sales representatives]. CEO Company G (neutral)

Figure 6 summarizes the tensions in the competing coalitions category.

4.5 Tensions and firm size

Some of the differences in how managers experienced the dualities and associated tensions may relate to the size of their firm. In the identity ambiguity category, interviewees from both the smallest firms (100 or less employees) and the largest (more than 400 employees) reported very little ambiguity regarding their identity. However, those from middle-sized firms (100–250 employees) struggled more with identity ambiguity. In light of these findings, we may cautiously assume that very small and very large firms experience relatively few tensions in relation to the identity ambiguity duality. However, middle-sized firms may be “in-betweeners” in terms of their industry identity. Most of the participating companies have been around for a long time, and small size is no indication of a newer company. In many cases, small companies are family-run wineries, and continuing in business is motivated in large part by having fun, doing good for the community, and gaining fulfillment from the business. This strong passion for the job may help small companies to maintain a flexible and playful identity.

I don’t believe that is controversial. I believe that you can definitely combine one with the other. Just because you have a traditional company, it doesn’t mean that you’re managing a boring or a stodgy brand. I think that is exactly the challenge of it, that you boost a modern, traditional company, or a brand, over and over again with modern accents, or simply update it. And I believe, [Company D] is doing it very good […] That is quite an achievement… this balance between tradition and modern, to combine them and also to make it interesting for the young consumers. Marketing Manager Company D (virtuous)

The large companies often have a separate beverages department and may be engaged in other retail sectors too. This may help to keep their identity focused, as they have the resources to create several sub-brands under the umbrella brand. The beverages marketing manager for Company F described the challenge differently than the representative of the small Company D.

You do not want to scare the customers. Of course, you don’t want to appear old-fashioned as a brand; you also try to position yourself as new. There are certainly areas of conflict where you have to be careful that you don’t become too modern while also avoiding becoming too dusty (old-fashioned). Marketing Manager Company F (dialectical)

In the renewal dynamics category, representatives of both small and large firms reported experiencing relatively little tension, and even then, these are experienced as largely positive. However, those from middle-sized firms (100–250 employees) identified many tensions in the renewal dynamics category, perhaps indicating the different renewal styles of companies of different sizes. For instance, the small beverage companies are likely to be agile based on their small size while large firms are likely to have a more solid market position and less renewal pressure. While smaller companies are more willing to try out novel innovations such as new flavors or unusual marketing campaigns, larger companies’ size may hinder their ability to grasp such opportunities. However, middle-sized firms may fall between demands for renewal and pressures for change when responding to changing industry demands.

In the category of competing coalitions, all firms experienced challenges, regardless of their size. These challenges were perceived as vicious or dialectical. This category includes dualities that relate to marketing activities and organizing responsibilities to align with other functions within the company. This relates more to the peculiarities of marketing and NPD roles in the company than to the nature of the traditional beverage industry.

5 Discussion

This study examined decision-making situations involving dualities by conducting interviews with 18 marketing executives in the Austrian traditional beverage industry, and by doing so, deepens our understanding of the decision-making tensions faced by marketing managers in traditional industries. An important outcome of the study is the identification of three categories of tension that apply particularly to traditional industries: identity ambiguity, renewal dynamics, and competing coalitions. These represent novel empirical evidence of the different types of managerial decision-making dualities and the nature of associated tensions. Indeed, some scholars have criticized current approaches for not fully incorporating the complexity of managerial tensions (e.g., Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015). The current findings provide evidence of managerial awareness and of the dualities that they encounter in their everyday operational decision-making and long-term strategic activities. This is significant because “understanding the characteristics of dualities allows for managers to chart what they are seeking from their organizing forms of managerial interventions” (Graetz and Smith 2008, p. 269). The study focused on decision-making dualities rather than “single-dimension decisions,” as these affect traditional industries but are also relevant for other industries undergoing major transitions due to changes such as digitalization. Poole and Van de Ven (1989) found that organizational theory struggles to fully explain organizational dualities; the present study contributes to a more thorough empirical understanding of dualities in the context of marketing and traditional industries.

In addition, the findings confirm that marketing managers engage in paradoxical cognitive processes to frame decisions involving dualities. As empirical support, we provide examples of how managers frame the associated tensions as vicious, virtuous, dialectical, ambivalent, or neutral. While our reading of the extant dualities and paradox literature made us to first focus on to vicious and virtuous categories, the latter three (dialectical, ambivalent, and neutral) emerged from the empirical data during the coding process. All the latter tensions as well are previously recognized in the literature in different forms (see e.g., Ashforth et al. 2014; Putnam et al. 2016; Smith and Lewis 2011). However, our study provides new empirically-driven nuances and evidence to the literature that has been mainly conceptual and theoretical. Thus, the results contribute to the existing literature on dualities in decision-making and associated tensions in the context of marketing and NPD in a traditional industry, as well as to the literature on paradoxical cognitive framing of such dualities.

Vicious tensions were associated with varying levels of worry, frustration, or fear. This aligns with past findings that vicious tensions foster anxiety, uncertainty, and ambiguity, as well as feelings of threat and defensiveness (Schneider 1990). In contrast, virtuous tensions tend to generate excitement or satisfaction. Although the word ‘tension’ generally has a negative connotation, the present findings indicate that tensions can also promote more positive feelings and attitudes that increase a company’s creativity and stimulate innovation (Gaim and Wåhlin 2016). This issue has also been discussed in the area of conflict research. Amason (1996) proposed that while task-related conflict can generate positive outcomes, conflict arising from personality differences is likely to yield negative outcomes. Cognitive conflict—the friction due to contradictory standpoints or perspectives—can increase decision quality, as decision-makers are likely to formulate better conclusions through social interaction and communication (Baron 1991). Pelled et al. found that cognitive conflict fostered “a deeper understanding of task issues and an exchange of information that facilitates problem-solving, decision-making and the generation of ideas” (1999, pp. 22–23). Our findings in relation to virtuous tensions complement and support findings concerning cognitive conflicts.

The dialectical tensions identified here echo the earlier definition by Putnam et al., who described dialectical tensions as “interdependent opposites aligned with forces that push–pull on each other like a rubber band and exist in an ongoing dynamic interplay as the poles implicate each other” (2016, p. 71). In the management literature, the dialectic view (e.g., Hargrave and Van de Ven 2017) views decisions as dualities where the opposite poles as two ends of a continuum exist in a dynamic relationship and the problem (or decision) is resolved through a dialectical transformation (Clegg et al. 2002, p. 495) of those tensions, synthesizing them into a new whole (Ford and Backoff 1988). This category of dialectical tensions was found to entail recognition of a need to respond simultaneously to opposite tensions that persist in a dynamic interplay over time (for a discussion of dialectics, see Putnam et al. 2016). As such, dialectics refers to an ongoing struggle between the unresolvable opposites of thesis and antithesis. These can be synthesized at some point but re-emerge as a new opposition over time (Smith and Lewis 2011). In this way, the dialectical relationship within the duality leads to competition for available resources, including managerial attention.

Two tensions in the identity ambiguity category were labeled as ambivalent (see also Jarzabkowski and Lê 2017; Lewis 2000). In such cases, marketing managers do not frame the duality as either positive or negative but as both. Ambivalent tensions were observed in decisions that are emotion-laden, personal, moral, or ethical, as for instance in the duality of profit versus social good or masculinity versus femininity.

Finally, in some decisions involving a duality, tensions were acknowledged but were perceived as neutral by the decision-maker. In addition, supported by theoretical reasoning (Isen and Shalker 1982), a mild feeling state was found to be most pronounced in the case of ambiguous or neutral stimuli rather than when dealing with stimuli that are clearly pleasant or unpleasant. Neutral tensions invite “acceptance” rather than “avoidance” (Lewis 2000), but to avoid confusion, we avoid using that term, as acceptance refers to an active response in the current paradox management literature. In the present study, neutral refers to cases where managers frame tensions as neutral and the duality (1) does not entail any strong reaction; (2) is considered “business as usual” or (3) has already been resolved by somehow working through it. Framing the tension of the duality as neutral may relate to experience—that is, the manager may have encountered similar decision-making situations in the past and so accepts them as “part of the business” despite the inherent tension.

5.1 Theoretical implications

The study makes a number of important theoretical and conceptual contributions. First, it highlights how marketing managers perceive decision-making dualities and provides evidence in this regard. The study also outlines types and occurrences of duality in decision making. Additionally, the study illuminates how marketing managers view decisions in terms of dualities, and what alternatives they consider. The study also extends current understanding of differences in marketing managers’ cognitive capabilities and how they take account of organizational dualities in their strategic and operational decision-making. The findings contribute in particular to the literature on managerial cognition and paradoxical framing in relation to dualities. The study also elaborates a context-specific categorization of associated tensions.

Secondly, this study extends the literature on organizational tensions from a management cognition perspective by providing further empirical evidence of the vicious and virtuous nature of tensions (see Gaim and Wåhlin 2016; Lewis and Smith 2014; Putnam et al. 2016). This builds on the idea of cognitive frames that managers use to interpret and simplify their decision-making environment and the decisions themselves (Dutton and Jackson 1987). While a positive frame entails positive outcomes or an absence of negative outcomes, a negative frame entails negative outcomes or an absence of positive outcomes (Broemer 2002). The study also identifies dialectical tensions in decision-making activities, where managers oscillate between opposite interpretations of competing demands. Our findings confirm that decision-making is not simple or straightforward, and that managers can be sufficiently analytical to consider both sides of the coin (for more discussion on dialectical tensions in decision-making, see e.g., Putnam et al. 2016; Gaim et al. 2018).

We also found some evidence of ambivalent framing. Ambivalence means that a person has “simultaneously positive and negative orientations toward an object” (Ashforth et al. 2014, p. 1454), and there is abundant evidence that positive and negative evaluations can and do coexist (e.g., Cacioppo, Gardner and Berntson 1997). For instance, if a manager holds ambivalent views on social issues, they not only accept but bring into contact “contrasting […] action repertoires that are usually separated” (Plambeck and Weber 2009, p. 998). This ambivalence is a distinctive state that stimulates debate and simultaneously primes response repertoires associated with positive and negative attitudes (Cacioppo et al. 1997).

Finally, neutral tensions arise in decision-making situations where managers recognize opposing demands and the associated tensions but their attitude and subsequent reactions remain neutral (see Edwards and Ostrom 1971). In the cases we observed, managers framed these as “already solved problems”—in other words, they had “made peace with the contradiction.” The manager has encountered such decisions in the past and has developed a coping mechanism that can be applied when confronting them again. These findings link to previously identified coping mechanisms for dealing with paradoxical tensions, including acceptance and learning to live with tensions arising from the duality (Lewis 2000). In the present case, however, the neutral framing seemed more readily applied, and the absence of tensions did not require managerial processing. Learning to use acceptance as a coping mechanism may be important for managers on first confronting such tensions.

Third, this study clarifies the nature of cognitive framing and paradoxical framing in decision-making situations. As the latter has also been identified as an antecedent of ambidextrous capabilities, the study also contributes to the broadening literature stream on organizational ambidexterity (Tushman and O’Reilly 1996), simultaneous exploration and exploitation (March 1991). This research has recently begun to explore approaches to contradictory demands from a managerial perspective, with examples of different dualities, including exploration and exploitation and others (e.g., Arzubiaga et al. 2017; Birkinshaw and Gupta 2013; Good and Michel 2013; Knight and Paroutis 2017; Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008). The present findings contribute to the ambidexterity literature by providing rich evidence of the range of dualities that managers encounter, requiring ambidexterity at the individual level (see Good and Michel 2013). The present study also helps to bridge another acknowledged gap in the ambidexterity literature in relation to the cognitive dimension of building ambidexterity into an organization (Eisenhardt et al. 2010; Good and Michel 2013) and, in particular, the initial cognitive framing phase of that process. This has been referred to as cognitive ambidexterity (e.g., Greenberg et al. 2013; Karhu et al. 2016; Karhu and Ritala 2018). Defined as “the ability to engage in parallel mental processes that are paradoxical or in contradiction” (Karhu et al. 2016), this is suggested to play a role in the decision-maker’s tension recognition and associated attitude.

5.2 Managerial implications

For managers, the present study illustrates the full variety of organizational tensions. Despite the term’s negative connotation, these are not always disadvantageous but can support the company’s objectives by boosting managers’ creativity or by making everyone’s job more enjoyable. In particular, vicious and virtuous organizational tensions can be traced to how managers frame conflict situations as positive or negative. In this regard, our findings resonate with those of Baron (1991), who showed that managers experienced more negative than positive effects of tension. The former arise from strong negative emotions related to cognition and stereotype-based thinking (Baron 1991). As managers use their cognitive frames to simplify information and make assumptions that may be false, conflict may be experienced as negative. In these cases, organizations would benefit from for guiding principles to lessen the impact of stereotypes and so achieve more positive outcomes from emerging tensions by transforming them into positive “cognitive conflicts” (Evans 1999). This could trigger positive organizational development by encouraging an exchange of perspectives through active discussion and debate.

When tensions arising from a duality are perceived as dialectical, attention should be paid to the organizational elements, features and characteristics that create the tension in order to identify possible mechanisms for controlling them (see also De Rond and Bouchikhi 2004). Dialectical tensions arise from contradictory demands where efforts to remove them repeatedly create new and ongoing oppositions (Gaim and Wåhlin 2016). Whenever possible, managers should accept these tensions as an unresolvable and inevitable aspect of the business.

Finally, ambivalence encompasses both cognition (how one thinks about X) and emotion (how one feels about X″) (Ashforth et al. 2014). Our findings further confirm that dualities that engender ambivalent tensions entail strong feelings, and previous studies have shown that the probability of completing cognitive tasks effectively may be considerably reduced by strong emotional stimulation. Psychologists contend that neural pathways for cognitive reasoning pass through emotional centers, which means that human beings feel before they think (Boyatzis and McKee 2005)—in other words, decisions cannot be executed without emotions (Buchanan and O’Connell 2006; see also Strutton and Tran 2014). As emotions enable us to prioritize alternatives (McKenzie et al. 2009), they often accompany and complement rational decision-making. Managers should therefore pay close attention to situations that evoke mixed feelings; depending on the situation, they may decide to pursue their “gut feeling” where they are comfortable with the duality, or seek rational facts to back up decision-making in case of doubt.

5.3 Limitations

The present study is not without limitations. The major limitation is the limited number of interviewees, who provide only limited insights into the causal relationships and characteristics of tensions in large or small firms. However, the data provide a snapshot of a traditional industry and yield some novel insights into how the framing of competing demands affects how these are approached and dealt with (Smith and Lewis 2011). This is thought to trigger vicious or virtuous cycles of tension that unfold repetitively (Gaim and Wåhlin 2016), but the study’s cross-sectional nature makes this impossible to confirm. A longitudinal study with two or more data collection points would provide more insight into how these tensions are framed over time and whether the frames remain constant in terms of how the same manager perceives the same tension at a later time. This would also serve to clarify influential contextual and situational factors beyond managers’ personal cognitive frames. A process perspective of the kind employed by Birkinshaw et al. (2016) or Costanzo and Di Domenico (2015) could confirm both the identified dualities and the nature of tensions arising from these across time and different activities.

As managerial perceptions are complex and multifaceted, cross-disciplinary theoretical and empirical research designs serve to illuminate the research problem from diverse perspectives. For instance, studies combining psychology and management may prove fruitful in clarifying how tension recognition, framing, and coping mechanisms emerge and evolve. The ideal solution may not always be to resolve the tensions but rather to use them as a source of creativity and necessary organizational change.

5.4 Future research directions

This study provides a foundation for further interesting research. As the study focuses on the paradoxical framing of dualities and perceived associated tensions, it would be useful to examine the step that occurs naturally after identification and sense making: finding a suitable coping mechanism. Duality and paradox scholars have discussed a range of coping mechanisms; in addition to acceptance (Lewis 2000), which was discussed in the context of neutral tensions, these include confrontation (Lewis 2000), accommodation (Smith 2014), and transcendence (e.g., Gaim and Wåhlin 2016). A follow-up study employing a quantitative approach, especially psychometric instruments, would further address the gap identified here and would support more generalizable findings. Additionally, this paper identifies a basis for further research into cognitive ambidexterity (e.g., Greenberg et al. 2013; Karhu et al. 2016; Karhu and Ritala 2018), with particular reference to how managers can approach tensions constructively and develop suitable coping mechanisms to manage, leverage, or neutralize them.

6 Conclusion

How can managers deal with paradoxical tensions that arise from organizational dualities, such as such as long-term versus short-term, innovation versus tradition, and stability versus change? This pressing question is increasingly confronted by decision makers in established industries and companies—such as in those 18 Austrian traditional beverage companies that we examined in the current study. These types of companies need to constantly assess their alignment to the changing markets and technological development, which creates a flow of paradoxical tensions regarding important decisions on how to allocate resources and attention in the company. Indeed, our study demonstrated that managers have to wrestle with paradoxical tensions regarding the ambiguity over the identity of the company and its internal stakeholders, the dynamics between routine and planning versus improvisation and novelty, as well as contradictory internal and external goals. We argue that the way these tensions are perceived and framed is a first step in understanding how they can be resolved. In this regard, we found significant managerial heterogeneity in terms of how the tensions arising from these dualities are framed. These include negative (vicious) as well as positive (virtuous) perception of the duality, oscillation and indecision between different alternatives of the duality (dialectical), simultaneous perception of negative and positive aspects of the duality (ambivalent), as well as mere recognition of the duality without particular tension (neutral). By providing new empirical insights into how managers frame paradoxical tensions that arise from organizational dualities, our study helps to understand the root causes of complexity and challenges in decision making that managers of companies under major change demands face.