The research approach is to examine the controllability of companies that are related to Organisational capabilities. The critical factor here is the dependence of both components on the dynamics of the environment. In a simple context of impact, the dynamics of the Organisational environment determine the controllability of the enterprise in terms of its Organisational capacity for innovation. In the framework of this article, grounded theory approaches will be used to introduce different concepts of balance and innovation and examine their common characteristics or contradictions. The elaborated characteristics serve for the own development of the Balance Theory. The paper describes important basic findings on the equilibrium concept in innovation research. A separate balance theory is developed and integrated into a management concept for sustainable corporate management. As a tool, future decisions for the innovative behaviour of Organisations can be derived.

1. Adler, H. (2014). Innovation: Theories, concepts and methods of innovation research. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.
2. Baur, N., & Blasius, J. (2014). Manual methods of empirical social research. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Fachmedien.
3. Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 7–19. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-18939-0
4. Blatter-Mink, B., & Menez, R. (2015). Compendium of innovation research. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-19971-9
5. Bruns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London, UK: Tavistock.
6. BS Standard BS65000. (2014). Guidance on organizational resilience. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2OPcp8i
7. Carayannis, E. G. (2013). Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation, and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Springer.
8. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Mnagement Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.275
9. Dasig Jr, D. (2017). A frontier in organizational and business process innovation in service management through lean six sigma Kaizen project implementation. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 3(6), 263–283. doi:https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-3.6.2
10. Dewey, J. (2002). Logic: The theory of research. Berlin, Germany: Suhrkamp Verlag.
11. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188.
12. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10-11), 1105–1121.
13. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103
14. Flicker Hoffmann, C., & Stettes, O. (2011). New balance between operational flexibility and stability Results of a representative iw survey. IW-Trends – Quarterly Empirical Economic Research, 38(1), 3-18.
15. Freiling, J. (2013). Resource-based view and ’o economic theory: Basics and positioning of the resource approach. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
16. Gebauer, A., & Kiel-Dixon, U. (2009). High reliability organizing managing the unexpected by building up organizational capabilities. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2QXbtAc
17. Geramanis, O., & Hermann, K. (2016). Lead in uncertain times: Impulses, concepts and practical examples. Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler publishing house. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-11227-1
18. Gerlmaier, A., Gül, K., Hellert, U., Kämpf, T., & Latniak, E. (2015). Practical guide life-phase-oriented personnel management: Developing and developing skills potentials in technical development areas. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
19. Grote, S. (2012). The future of the german geographical days. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
20. Helfat, C. E. (2007). Stylized facts, empirical research and theory development in management. Strategic Organization, 5(2), 185-192.
21. Hippel, E. (2007). The sources of innovation. In C. Boersch & F. von Dienst (Eds.), The summa summarum of success: The 25 most important works for motivation, effectiveness, and personal success (pp. 111–120). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
22. Hoffmann, G. P. (2016). Organizational resilience: Fundamentals and recommendations for decision makers and leadership. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
23. Howaldt, J., & Jacobsen, H. (2010). Social innovation: Towards a post-industrial innovation paradigm. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
24. Jeschke, S., Isenhardt, I., Hees, F., & Trantow, S. (2011). Enabling innovation: Innovationsfähigkeit-deutsche und internationale perspektiven. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
25. Karban, W. (2015). The second order observer and aristotles mesotes. a contemporary interpretation of aristotles mesotes. Biocosmology–Neo-Aristotelism, 5(3, 4), 424-438.
26. Kehrbaum, T. (2009). Innovation as a social process – Change of discourse. In Innovation as a social process (pp. 17–56). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
27. Kösterster, I. (2004). Controllability of macroeconomic development from a systems theory perspective: Sustainability through innovation promotion and japanese environmental and economic policy (Vol. 6). Hamburg, Germany: Books on Demand.
28. Krotz, F. (2005). Developing new theories: Ene introduction to grounded theory, heuristic social research and ethnography using examples from communication research. New York City, NY: Köln.
29. Kupke, S. r. (2009). Alliance business entity: Concept and case study. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
30. Lovas, B., & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Strategy as guided evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 875–896. doi:March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
31. Mette, M. (2013). Strategisches management im konjunkturzyklus. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
32. Mohr, G. J. (2016). Systemic resilience: The perspectives and the resilience-quadarat systematic resilience- perspectives and the resilience-square. Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 23(4), 411–426. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11613-016-0476-y
33. Nieschalk, H. (2012). AfB / baumstatik / statics and strength of trees. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2PYvSEm
34. OReilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
35. Philipsen, G., & Ziemer, F. (2014). With resilience to sustainable business success. Business Informatics & Management, 6(2), 68-76. doi:https://doi.org/10.1365/s35764-014-0405-9
36. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/259392
37. Sailer, K. (2012). Challenge innovation. In Smart innovation (pp. 253–259). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
38. Saputri, M. E., & Mulyaningsih, H. D. (2016). Blue ocean strategy for creating value innovation: A study over Kedai digital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 1(1), 14–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-1.1.3
39. Schirmer, F., & Ziesche, K. (2010). Dynamic capabilities: The dilemma of stability and dynamics from an organizational perspective. In E. Barthel, A. Hanft, & J. Hasebrook (Eds.), Integrated competence management in the area of tension between innovation and routine (p. 15-43). Berlin, Germany: Waxmann.
40. Spielkamp, A., & Rammer, C. (2006). Balancing act innovation: Success factors in innovation management of small and medium businesses (Tech. Rep.). Mannheim, Germany: Center for European Economic Research.
41. Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J. M., Niewiarra, S., et al. (1996). Grounded theory: Fundamentals of qualitative social research. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz, Psychology-Publishing-Union.
42. Strubing, J. (2004). Grounded theory: On the social-theoretical and epistemological foundation of the method of empirically grounded theorizing. Wiesbaden, Germany: Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften.
43. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
44. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-7506-7088-3.50009-7
45. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
46. Trantow, S., Hees, F., & Jeschke, S. (2011). The feasibility for innovation – Introduction to the anthology. In S. Jeschke, I. Isenhardt, & F. Hees (Eds.), Enabling innovation (pp. 1–14). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
47. Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.-H., & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. In Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.
48. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
49. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.
50. Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x

Varsani, M. (2018). Concept for strategic management and innovation: Perspective of balance theory. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 4(3), 93-104. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.20469/ijbas.4.10002-3