Element contents
Series: Elements in Organization Theory
Organizational Paradox
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 September 2022
Summary
Paradoxes, contrary propositions that are not contestable separately but that are inconsistent when conjoined, constitute a pervasive feature of contemporary organizational life. When contradictory elements are constituted as equally important in day-to-day work, organizational actors frequently experience acute tensions in engaging with these contradictions. This Element discusses the presence of paradoxes in the life of organizations, introduces the reader to the notion of paradox in theory and practice, and distinguishes paradox and adjacent conceptualizations such as trade-off, dilemma, dialectics, ambiguity, etc. This Element also covers what triggers paradoxes and how they come into being whereby the Element distinguishes latent and salient paradoxes and how salient paradoxes are managed. This Element discusses key methodological challenges and possibilities of studying, teaching, and applying paradoxes and concludes by considering some future research questions left unexplored in the field.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Organization TheoryOnline ISBN: 9781009128155Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 22 September 2022
References
Abdallah, C., Denis, J.-L. and Langley, A. (2011). Having your cake and eating it too: Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24(3): 333–48.Google Scholar
Abrantes, A., Cunha, M. P. and Miner, A. S. (2021). Elgar introduction to organizational improvisation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Achtenhagen, L., and Melin, L. (2003). Managing the homogeneity-heterogeneity duality. In Pettigrew, A., Whittington, R., Melin, L. et al. (eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 301–27). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Adler, P. S., and Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 61–89.Google Scholar
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science 10(1): 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvesson, M., and Kärreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53: 1125–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20(4): 696–717.Google Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning 43(1): 104–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aoki, K., and Wilhelm, M. (2017). The role of ambidexterity in managing buyer-supplier relationships: The Toyota case. Organization Science 28(6): 1080–97.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E. (1991). The whys and wherefores of organizational Catch-22s: Common types and their implications for organization development. Public Administration Quarterly 14(4): 457–82.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly 59(3): 474–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G. and Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science 25(5): 1453–78. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansal., P. (2017). Monsanto Company: Doing business in India, by Klassen, Robert D.. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16(3): 484–5.Google Scholar
Bansal, P., Kim, A. and Wood, M. O. (2018). Hidden in plain sight: The importance of scale in organizations’ attention to issues. Academy of Management Review 43(2): 217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartunek, J. M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In Quinn, R. and Cameron, K. (eds.), Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 137–62). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., and Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53(6): 1419–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxter, J., Hewitt, B. and Haynes, M. (2008). Life course transitions and housework: Marriage, parenthood, and time on housework. Journal of Marriage and Family 70(2): 259–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, S., and Ogden, T. (2007). Beware of bad microcredit. Harvard Business Review 85(9): 20–2.Google Scholar
Bednarek, R., Cunha, M. P., Schad, J. et al. (2021a). The value of interdisciplinary research to advance paradox in organization theory. In Bednarek, R., Cunha, M. P., Schad, J. and Smith, W. K. (eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Learning from belief and science, Part A (pp. 3–25). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Bednarek, R., Cunha, M. P., Schad, J. et al. (2021b). Implementing interdisciplinary paradox research. In Bednarek, R., Cunha, M. P., Schad, J. et al. (eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Investigating social structures and human expression, Part B (pp. 3–24). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Beech, N., Burns, H., Caestecker, L.D., MacIntosh, R. and Maclean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations 57(10): 1313–32.Google Scholar
Benbenisty, Y., and Luria, G. (2021). A time to act and a time for restraint: Everyday sensegiving in the context of paradox. Journal of Organizational Behavior 42(8): 1005–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 1–21.Google Scholar
Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Berger, P., and Pullberg, S. (1966). Reification and the sociological critique of consciousness. New Left Review (35): 56–71.Google Scholar
Bernerth, J. B., Walker, H. J. and Harris, S. G. (2011). Change fatigue: Development and initial validation of a new measure. Work and Stress 25(4): 321–37.Google Scholar
Berti, M. (2017). Elgar introduction to organizational discourse analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Berti, M. (2021). Logic(s) and paradox. In R. Bednarek, , Cunha, M. P., Schad, J. et al. (eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Investigating social structures and human expression (pp. 27–47). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Berti, M., and Simpson, A. V. (2021). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review 46(2): 252–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berti, M., Simpson, A. V., Cunha, M. P. and Clegg., S. (2021). Elgar introduction to organizational paradox theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besharov, M. L., and Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review 39(3): 364–81.Google Scholar
Boldizzoni, F. (2020). Foretelling the end of capitalism: Intellectual misadventures since Karl Marx. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science 2(3): 197–208.Google Scholar
Brix-Asala, C., Geisbüsch, A. K., Sauer, P. C., Schöpflin, P. and Zehendner, A. (2018). Sustainability tensions in supply chains: A case study of paradoxes and their management. Sustainability 10(2): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(1): 1–34.Google Scholar
Bucknell, K. (2000). Who is Christopher Isherwood? In Berg, J. J. and Freeman, C. (eds.), The Isherwood century: Essays in the life and works of Christopher Isherwood (pp. 13–29). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Busse, C., Kach, A. P. and Wagner, S. M. (2017). Boundary conditions: What they are, how to explore them, why we need them, and when to consider them. Organizational Research Methods 20(4): 574–609.Google Scholar
Bygdås, A. L., Clegg, S. R. and Hagen, A. L. (2019). Media management and digital transformation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byggeth, S., and Hochschorner, E. (2006). Handling trade-offs in ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. Journal of Cleaner Production 14(15–16): 1420–30.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S. (2017). Paradox in positive organizational scholarship.In Smith, W. K., Lewis, M., Jarzabkowski, P. and Langley, A. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradoxes (pp. 216–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S., and Quinn, R. E. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Carollo, L., and Guerci, M. (2018). ‘Activists in a suit’: Paradoxes and metaphors in sustainability managers’ identity work. Journal of Business Ethics 148(2): 249–68.Google Scholar
Carton, A. M. (2018). ‘I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon’: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Administrative Science Quarterly 63(2): 323–69.Google Scholar
Castilla, E. J., and Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 55(4): 543–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese ‘middle way’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19(2): 179–99.Google Scholar
Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry 17(4): 288–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R. (2002). General introduction. In Clegg, S. R. (ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 1–10). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V. and Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations 55(5): 483–503.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., and Cunha, M. P. (2017). Organizational dialectics. In Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., et al. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 105–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, M. P. and Berti, M. (2022). Research movements and theorizing dynamics in management and organization studies. Academy of Management Review 47(3):382–401.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, M. P., Munro, I. et al. (2016). Kafkaesque power and bureaucracy. Journal of Political Power 9(2): 157–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, S., Cunha, M. P., Rego, A. and Berti, M. (2021). The academic as jester stimulating management learning. Management Learning.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M. and Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization 12: 147–67.Google Scholar
Coget, J. F., and Keller, E. (2010). The critical decision vortex: Lessons from the emergency room. Journal of Management Inquiry 19(1): 56–67.Google Scholar
Collins, D. (1994). The disempowering logic of empowerment. Empowerment in Organizations 2(2): 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review 12(4): 637–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, J. V., Clegg, S. R. and Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management, paradox, and permanent dialectics. In Clegg, S. R. (ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 1–10). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S. R., Rego, A. et al. (2021). Paradoxes of power and leadership. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Fortes, A., Gomes, E. et al. (2019b). Ambidextrous leadership, paradox and contingency: Evidence from Angola. International Journal of Human Resource Management 30(4): 702–27.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Giustiniano, L., Rego, A. et al. (2017). Mission impossible? The paradoxes of stretch goal setting. Management Learning 48(2): 40–57.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Kamoche, K. and Cunha, R. C. (2003). Organizational improvisation and leadership: A field study in two computer-mediated settings. International Studies of Management & Organization 33(1): 34–57.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Neves, P., Clegg, S., Costa, S. and Rego, A. (2019). Paradoxes of organizational change in a merger context. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 14(3): 217–40.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., and Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization 17(1): 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., Simpson., A. and Clegg, S. (2020). Positive organizational behavior: A reflective approach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Simpson, A. V., Clegg, S. R. et al. (2019a). Speak! Paradoxical effects of a managerial culture of ‘speaking up’. British Journal of Management 30(4): 829–46.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Simpson, A. V., Rego, A. and Clegg, S. (2022). Non-naïve organizational positivity through a generative paradox pedagogy. Management Learning 53(1): 15–32.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P., Zoogah, D., Wood, G. et al. (2020). Guest editorial. Journal of Knowledge Management 24(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Da Silveira, G., and Slack, N. (2001). Exploring the trade‐off concept. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 21(7): 949–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, L. (2014). Wonder and the ends of inquiry. Point Magazine, 11 June. https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/wonder-ends-inquiry/. Accessed 17 August 2021.Google Scholar
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science 6(5): 524–40.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (1987). Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defence of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies 24(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. L., and Garud, R. (2009). Distributed knowledge and indeterminate meaning: The case of the Columbia shuttle flight. Organization Studies 30(4): 397–421.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(6): 391–4.Google Scholar
Eden, C., Jones, S., Sims, D. et al. (1981). The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjectivity. Journal of Management Studies 18(1): 37–47.Google Scholar
Edgecliffe-Johnson, A., Hill, A. and Kuchler, H. (2021). Is McKinsey losing its mystique? Financial Times, 23 February, 17.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., and Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24(3): 368–87.Google Scholar
Fairhurst, G. T., and Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leadership: A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly 24(2): 171–210.Google Scholar
Fairhurst, G. T., and Putnam, L. L. (2019). An integrative methodology for organizational oppositions: Aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis. Organizational Research Methods 22(4): 917–40.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review 35(2): 202–25.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics. In Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. (eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (pp. 87–109). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2019). Strategy and dialectics: Rejuvenating a long-standing relationship. Strategic Organization 17(1): 133–44.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M. (2021). The becoming of change in 3D: Dialectics, Darwin and Dewey. In Poole, M. S. and Van de Ven, A. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational change and innovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198845973.013.38.Google Scholar
Farjoun, M., Ansell, C. and Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE: Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science 26(6): 1787–1804.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. E. (1984).The feminist case against bureaucracy. Temple, IN: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, J. D., and Ford, L. W. (1994), Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review 19(4): 756–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, H., and Keegan, A. (2020). The ethics of engagement in an age of austerity: A paradox perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 162(3): 593–607.Google Scholar
Gaim, M. (2017). Paradox as the new normal: Essays on framing, managing and sustaining organizational tensions. Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
Gaim, M. (2018). On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms. European Management Journal 36(4): 497–518.Google Scholar
Gaim, M., and Clegg, S. R. (2021). Paradox beyond East/West orthodoxy: The case of Ubuntu. In Bednarek, R., Cunha, M. P., Schad, J. et al. (eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Investigating social structures and human expression. Part A (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 73a) (pp. 29–50). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Gaim, M., Clegg, S. and Cunha, M. P. (2021). Managing impressions rather than emissions: Volkswagen and the false mastery of paradox. Organization Studies 42(6): 949–70.Google Scholar
Gaim, M., Clegg, S. and Cunha, M. P. (2022). In praise of paradox persistence: Evidence from the Sydney Opera House Project. Project Management Journal 53(4): 397–415.Google Scholar
Gaim, M., and Wåhlin, N. (2016). In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scandinavian Journal of Management 32(1): 33–44.Google Scholar
Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., Cunha, M. P. et al. (2018) Analyzing competing demands in organizations: A systematic comparison. Journal of Organization Design 7(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
Geppert, M., and Williams, K. (2006). Global, national and local practices in multinational corporations: Towards a sociopolitical framework. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(1): 49–69.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W. et al. (2010). Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. Human Relations 63(6): 781–805.Google Scholar
Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review 76(3): 55–64.Google Scholar
Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M. and Morris, T. (2020). ‘God at work’: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal 63(1): 124–54.Google Scholar
Hage, G. (2009). Waiting out the crisis: On stuckedness and governmentality. Anthropological Theory 5: 463–75.Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. et al. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics 148(2): 235–48.Google Scholar
Hahn, T., and Knight, E. (2021). The ontology of organizational paradox: A quantum approach. Academy of Management Review 46(2): 362–84.Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. et al. (2015). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review 4015: 18–42.Google Scholar
Hallyday, F. (1996). A Cold War tragedy in Afghanistan that the world forgot. Irish Times. 11 May. www.irishtimes.com/news/a-cold-war-tragedy-in-afghanistan-that-the-world-forgot-1.48054. Accessed 17 August 2021.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. J. (2020). The paradox perspective and the dialectics of contradictions research. In Poole, M. S. and Van de Ven, A. H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 161–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hargrave, T. J., and Van de Ven, A. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 319–39.Google Scholar
Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics 17(1): 17–43.Google Scholar
Hengst, I.-A., Jarzabkowski, P., Hoegl, M. et al. (2019). Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernes, T., and Bakken, T. (2003). Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis and organization theory. Organization Studies 24(9): 1511–35.Google Scholar
Huq, J.-L., Reay, T. and Chreim, S. 2017. Protecting the paradox of interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 513–38.Google Scholar
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U. and Orij, R. P. (2018). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics 149(2): 411–32.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1965 [1935]). The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Iivonen, K. (2018). Defensive responses to strategic sustainability paradoxes: Have your Coke and drink it too! Journal of Business Ethics 148(2): 309–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssens, M., and Steyaert, C. (1999). The world in two and a third way out? The concept of duality in organization theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management 15(2): 121–39.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, C. and Cacciatori, E. (2021a). Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: Knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Kilminster, W. et al. (2021b). An integrative approach to investigating longstanding organisational phenomena: Opportunities for practice theorists and historians. Business History 1–9.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., and Lê, J. K. (2017). We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 433–62.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. and Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization 11(3): 245–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jay., J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal 56(1): 137–59.Google Scholar
Jenkins, S. (2021). It has taken 20 years to prove the invasion of Afghanistan was totally unnecessary. The Guardian. 16 August. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/16/20-years-invasion-afghanistan-unnecessary-post-imperial-fantasy. Accessed 17 August 2021.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Middleville, MI: Human Resource Development.Google Scholar
Joseph, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M. and Lindgreen, A. (2020). Seeing versus doing: How businesses manage tensions in pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 164(2): 349–70.Google Scholar
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J. and Yan, J. (2017). Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 539–60.Google Scholar
Keller, J., Wen Chen, E. and Leung, A. K.-Y. (2018). How national culture influences individuals’ subjective experience with paradoxical tensions. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management 25(3): 443–67.Google Scholar
Keller, J., Wong, S.-S. and Liou, S. (2020). How social networks facilitate collective responses to organizational paradoxes. Human Relations 73(3): 401–28.Google Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2017). Riding the leadership rollercoaster. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Kiefhaber, E., Pavlovich, K. and Spraul, K. (2020). Sustainability-related identities and the institutional environment: The case of New Zealand: Owners–managers of small- and medium-sized hospitality businesses.Journal of Business Ethics 163(1): 37–51.Google Scholar
King, A. A., and Pucker, K. P. (2021). The dangerous allure of win-win strategies. Stanford Social Innovation Review Winter: 35–9.Google Scholar
Knight, E., and Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 403–32.Google Scholar
Kok, A. M., de Bakker, F. G. and Groenewegen, P. (2019). Sustainability struggles: Conflicting cultures and incompatible logics. Business and Society 58(8): 1496–1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalaounis, S. T., and Nayak, A. (2021). Dynamic stability: Unfolding dynamics of vicious cycles in a design firm. European Management Journal 40(1): 137–50.Google Scholar
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. et al. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal 56(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., and Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 12(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Le Guin, U. K. (2011). Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching: A book about the way and the power of the way. Shambhala Publications.Google Scholar
Leonard‐Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13(S1): 111–25.Google Scholar
Levinson, H. M. (1960). Pattern bargaining: A case study of the automobile workers. Quarterly Journal of Economics 74(2): 296–317.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 760–76.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C. and Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review 56(3): 58–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W., and Dehler, G. E. (2000). Learning through paradox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity. Journal of Management Education 24(6): 708–25.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W., and Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 50(2): 127–49.Google Scholar
Li, P. P. (1998). Towards a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies 19(5): 829–61.Google Scholar
Li, P. P. (2016). Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East: How to apply yin-yang balancing to paradox management. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management 23(1): 42–77.Google Scholar
Li, X. (2014). Can yin‐yang guide Chinese indigenous management research? Management and Organization Review 10(1): 7–27.Google Scholar
Li, X. (2021). Solving paradox by reducing expectation. Academy of Management Review 46(2): 406–8.Google Scholar
Lindberg, O., Rantatalo, O. and Hällgren, M. (2017). Making sense through false syntheses: Working with paradoxes in the reorganization of the Swedish police. Scandinavian Journal of Management 33(3): 175–84.Google Scholar
Lindsay, R. M., and Libby, T. (2007). Svenska Handelsbanken: Controlling a radically decentralized organization without budgets. Issues in Accounting Education 22(4): 625–40.Google Scholar
Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51(2): 221–40.Google Scholar
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Golant, B. D. and Sillince, J. A. (2020). The role of innovation narratives in accomplishing organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization 19(4): 693–721.Google Scholar
Manzhynski, S. (2021). Understanding and managing coopetition for sustainability: Process and outcomes (Doctoral dissertation, Umeå University).Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 26(3): 327–42.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (2010). The ambiguities of experience. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Marti, E., and Gond, J.-P. (2018). When do theories become self-fulfilling? Exploring the boundary conditions of performativity. Academy of Management Review 43(3): 487–508.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 30(1): 14–33.Google Scholar
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1800.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1(6): 894–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalf, W. (1940). The reality of the unobservable. Philosophy of Science 7(3): 337–41.Google Scholar
Meyer, E. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. Amsterdam: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Miller, D. (1992). The Icarus paradox: How exceptional companies bring about their own downfall. Business Horizons 35(1): 24–35.Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2011a). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal 54(4): 740–60.Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F. and Argote, L. (2011b). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116(2): 229–40.Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. and Lewis, M. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal 61(1): 26–45.Google Scholar
Murnighan, J. K., and Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(2): 165–86.Google Scholar
Nayak, A. (2016). Wisdom and the tragic question: Moral learning and emotional perception in leadership and organisations. Journal of Business Ethics 137(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (2021). Humanizing strategy. Long Range Planning. 102070.Google Scholar
Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics 27(4): 321–34.Google Scholar
O’Byrne, D. (2020). Power without responsibility: Populism, narcisism and the contradictions of contemporary capitalism. International Critical Thought (10)3: 440–53.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C. A., and Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82(4): 74–81, 140.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Reilly, C. A., and Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior 28(4): 185–206.Google Scholar
Padavic, I., Ely, R. J. and Reid, E. M. (2020). Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: The work-family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Administrative Science Quarterly 65(1): 61–111.Google Scholar
Pamphile, V. D. (2021). Paradox peers: A relational approach to navigating a business-society paradox. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patrick, H. (2018). Nested tensions and smoothing tactics: An ethnographic examination of ambidexterity in a theatre. Management Learning 49(5): 559–77.Google Scholar
Peng, K., and Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist 54(9): 741–54.Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., and Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 562–78.Google Scholar
Pradies, C., Carmine, S., Cheal, J. et al. (2021). The lived experience of paradox: How individuals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry 30(2): 154–67.Google Scholar
Pradies, C., Tunarosa, A., Lewis, M. W. et al. (2020). From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: The social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620907200.Google Scholar
Prange, C. (2021). Agility as the discovery of slowness. California Management Review 63(4): 27–51.Google Scholar
Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Hahn, T. and Figge, F. (2021). Travelled roads and novel vistas: Taking Stock of empirical studies into tensions in sustainability, business. In Maak, T., Pless, N., Orlitzky, M. and Sandhu, S. (eds.), The Routledge companion to corporate social responsibility (pp. 342–54). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T. and Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 65–171.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, R., DeJordy, R. and McDonald, R. M. (2021). How leaders with divergent visions generate novel strategy: Navigating the paradox of preservation and modernization in Swiss watchmaking. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J. andVan De Ven, A. H. (2018). The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies 55(8): 1507–26.Google Scholar
Repenning, N. P., and Sterman, J. D. (2001). Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened: Creating and sustaining process improvement. California Management Review 43(4): 64–88.Google Scholar
Rhee, M., and Kim, T. (2015). Great vessels take a long time to mature: Early success traps and competences in exploitation and exploration. Organization Science 26(1): 180–97.Google Scholar
Ritzer, G. (1990). Metatheorizing in sociology: The basic parameters and the potential contributions of postmodernism. Sociological Forum 5(1): 3–15.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. A., and Acemoglu, D. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. London: Profile.Google Scholar
Rosales, V. et al. (2022). The rubber band effect: Managing the stability-change paradox in routines. Scandinavian Journal of Management.Google Scholar
Rossi, M., Nandhakumar, J. and Mattila, M. (2020). Balancing fluid and cemented routines in a digital workplace. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 29(2): 101616.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children‘in J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.): Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). Making sense of the sensemaking perspective: Its constituents, limitations, and opportunities for further development. Journal of organizational behavior, 36(S1), S6–S32.Google Scholar
Schad, J. (2017). Ad fontes: Philosophical foundations of paradox research. In Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. et al. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 27–47).Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schad, J., and Bansal, P. (2018). Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies 55(8): 1490–1506.Google Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. et al. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 5–64.Google Scholar
Schrage, S., and Rasche, A. (2021). Inter-organizational paradox management: How national business systems affect responses to paradox along a global value chain. Organization Studies 43(4): 547–71.Google Scholar
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, G., and Bansal, P. (2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial-social paradox. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 341–64.Google Scholar
Sharma, G., and Jaiswal, A. K. (2018). Unsustainability of sustainability: Cognitive frames and tensions in bottom of the pyramid projects. Journal of Business Ethics 148(2): 291–307.Google Scholar
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T. and Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off.Organization Studies 38(3–4): 463–88.Google Scholar
Silva, T., Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S. R. et al. (2013). Smells like team spirit: Opening a paradoxical black box. Human Relations 67(3): 287–310.Google Scholar
Sitkin, S. B., See, K. E., Miller, C. C. et al. (2011). The paradox of stretch goals: Organizations in pursuit of the seemingly impossible. Academy of Management Review 36(3): 544–66.Google Scholar
Slawinski, N., and Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability.Organization Science 26(2): 531–49.Google Scholar
Sleesman, D. J. (2019). Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 155: 83–96.Google Scholar
Smith, K., and Berg, D. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Smith, W., and Lewis, M. (2011). Towards a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review 36(2): 381–403.Google Scholar
Smith, W., Lewis, M., and Tushman, M. (2016). Both/and leadership. Harvard Business Review 94(5): 62–70.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal 57(6): 1592–1623.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., and Besharov, M. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly 64(1): 1–44.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., and Cunha, M. P. (2020). A paradoxical approach to hybridity: Integrating dynamic equilibrium and disequilibrium perspectives. Organizational hybridity: Perspectives, processes, promises. Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S. et al. (2017a). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to Organization Studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 303–17.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. and Langley, A. (eds.) (2017b). The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. et al. (2017c). Introduction: The paradoxes of paradox. In Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. et al. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 1–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., and Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization 14(4): 455–66.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science 16(5): 522–36.Google Scholar
Sparr, J. L. (2018). Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sensegiving. Journal of Change Management 18(2): 162–80.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Stephenson, K. A., Kuismin, A., Putnam, L. L. et al. (2020). Process studies of organizational space. Academy of Management Annals 14(2): 797–827.Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review 10(2–3): 291–330.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2020). Sludge audits. Behavioural Public Policy. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.32.Google Scholar
Takeuchi, H., Osono, E. and Shimizu, N. (2008). The contradictions that drive Toyota’s success. Harvard Business Review June: 96–104.Google Scholar
Tett, G. (2015). The silo effect: The peril of expertise and the promise of breaking down barriers. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H. (2018). From agility to antifragility: Coping with the unknowable. In Prange, C. and L. Heracleous, (eds.), Agility X: How organizations thrive in unpredictable times (pp. 43–53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H., and Cunha, M. P. (2017). On organizational circularity: Vicious and virtuous circles in organizing. In Lewis, M. W., Smith, W. K., Jarzabkowski, P. and Langley, A. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions, and contradictions (pp. 393–412). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuckermann, H. (2019). Visibilizing and invisibilizing paradox: A process study of interactions in a hospital executive board. Organization Studies 40(12): 1851–72.Google Scholar
Tzu, L. (2011). Tao te ching: A book about the way and the power of the way. Boston, MA: Shambala.Google Scholar
Van Gansbeke, F. (2021). Sustainability and the downfall of Danone CEO Faber (1 and 2) Forbes. 20 March. www.forbes.com/sites/frankvangansbeke/2021/03/20/sustainability-and-the-downfall-of-danone-ceo-faber-12/?sh=1b1208775b16. Accessed 28 July 2021.Google Scholar
Vignehsa, K. (2014). The art of stuckedness: When practices persist against all odds. PhD, University of Technology Sydney.Google Scholar
Vince, R., and Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies 17(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Vuori, T. O., and Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emotions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone battle. Administrative Science Quarterly 61(1): 9–51.Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Jackson, D. D. and Bavelas, J. B. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Wendt, R. F. (1995). Women in positions of service: The politicized body. Communication Studies 46(3–4): 276–96.Google Scholar
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies 14(1): 37–58.Google Scholar
Zhao, S. (1991). Metatheory, metamethod, meta-data-analysis: What, why, and how? Sociological Perspectives 34(3): 377–90.Google Scholar
Zorina, A., Bélanger, F., Kumar, N. and Clegg, S. (2021). Watchers, watched, and watching in the digital age: Reconceptualization of information technology monitoring as complex action nets. Organization Science 32(6): 1571–96.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 34
- Cited by