Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-9qwsl Total loading time: 0.752 Render date: 2023-02-07T10:53:38.000Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

A Transparadox Process of Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2021

Dalong Pang
Affiliation:
Xi'an Jiaotong University, China
Leigh Anne Liu
Affiliation:
Georgia State University, USA
Ming-Jer Chen*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, USA
*
Corresponding author: Ming-Jer Chen (chenm@darden.virginia.edu)

Abstract

Decision makers inevitably face a variety of tensions when managing strategic change. Research from organization and strategy perspectives, such as paradox and organizational learning, has offered useful but limited insight into the systematic mindset and thinking processes involved in decision making. We draw on theoretical and philosophical foundations of the transparadox perspective and related theories to build a dynamic process cycle of transparadoxical decision making. Three interrelated dimensions make up our model: (1) Transparadox Information Navigation, which includes embracing oppositional tendencies, syncretic focus, and creative transcendence; (2) Transparadox Contextual Consideration, characterized by prudent precision and recognizing the flux of temporality and spatiality; and (3) Transparadox Integration, which comprises design-type integration and exploration-type integration. We then present propositions on the interdependent and reinforcing mechanism among the three dimensions. Our work expands the paradox literature with specific mindset dimensions and constituent elements, connecting paradox research with the cognitive perspective by adding dynamic, cyclical processes to paradox cognition study.

摘要

在管理战略变革时,决策制定者不可避免地面临各种各样的张力。以往在组织战略视角下做的研究,如悖论与组织学习,对决策制定的系统性心智模式和思维过程提供的见解有用但相当局限。本文援引超悖论视角的理论与哲学基础以及其它相应理论,构建了决策制定的超悖论动态循环过程模型。这一模型由三个互相关联的维度构成:(1)超悖论信息导航,包括主动采纳对立信息,聚焦于合成信息,和超越创生性三个要素;(2)超悖论情境考量,以谨慎精确和明辨时空为特征;(3)超悖论整合,由设计型整合与探索型整合组成。本文进而提出论述这三个维度之间互相依赖和互相增固机制的理论命题。本文不仅通过将具体的心智模式维度及其组成要素概念化而拓展了悖论研究,而且通过为悖论认知研究增添了动态、循环性过程,从而连接了悖论与认知视角的研究。

Type
Perspectives
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Sunny Li Sun

References

REFERENCES

Andrevski, G., & Miller, D. 2020. Forbearance: Strategic nonresponse to competitive attacks. Academy of Management Review, in press.Google Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonacopoulou, E. P. 2006. The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Management Learning, 37(4): 455473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argote, L. 2013. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. 2011. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5): 11231137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3): 474516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 421456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S., & Sillince, J. 2017. Transcendence through rhetorical practices: Responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies, 38(1): 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. 2015. Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award-’Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited’ ten years later. Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 497514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bingham, C. B., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rational heuristics: The ‘simple rules’ that strategists learn from process experience. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13): 14371464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A., & Mendenhall, M. E. 2016. From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation. Journal of World Business, 51(1): 115126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A., & Osland, J. 2004. Global competencies: An introduction. In Lane, H., Maznevksi, M., Mendenhall, M. E., & McNett, J. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of global management: A guide to managing complexity: 5780. Figure on p. 60. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. 2017. The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 365401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, W. T. 1963. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2002. Transcending paradox: The Chinese ‘Middle Way’ perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3): 179199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2008. Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4): 288304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2014. Becoming ambicultural: A personal quest, and aspiration for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 39(2): 119137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2016. Competitive dynamics: Eastern roots, western growth. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 23(4): 510530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2018a. The research-teaching ‘oneness’ of competitive dynamics: Toward an ambicultural integration. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(2): 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J. 2018b. Scholarship-practice ‘oneness’ of an academic career: The entrepreneurial pursuit of an expansive view of management scholarship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. doi: 10.1007/s10490-018-9625-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. 2010. West meets East: Towards an ambicultural approach to management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4): 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. 2012. Competitive dynamics: Themes, trends, and a prospective research platform. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1): 135210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. 2015. Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: A multidimensional framework. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5): 758775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, C. 2020. Whence paradox? Framing away the potential challenges of doing well by doing good in social enterprise organizations. Organization Studies, 41(8): 11471167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiles, T., Meyer, A., & Hench, T. 2004. Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of Branson, Missouri's musical theaters. Organization Science, 15(5): 499519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, C. M. 1997. The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Comeau-Vallée, M., Denis, J.-L., Normandin, J. M., & Therrien, M.-C. 2017. Alternate prisms for pluralism and paradox in organizations. In Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. & Langley, A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: 197215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. 2007. Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossan, M. M., & Berdrow, I. 2003. Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24(11): 10871105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. 1999. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3): 522537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuganesan, S. 2017. Identify paradoxes: How senior managers and employees negotiate similarity and distinctiveness tensions over time. Organization Studies, 38(3): 489511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunha, M. P., & Putnam, L. L. 2019. Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1): 95106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. 2001. A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6): 645668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. 1995. Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5): 524540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVellis, R. F. 1991. Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K., & Bourgeois, L. J. 1988. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 737770.Google Scholar
Erez, M., & Earley, C. P. 1993. Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 202225.Google Scholar
Feng, J. B., Liu, L. A., & Jiang, C. 2019. Parochialism and implications for Chinese firms’ globalization. Management and Organization Review, 15(4): 705736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filatotchev, I., Wei, L.-Q., Sarala, R. M., Dick, P., & Prescott, J. E. 2020. Connecting Eastern and Western perspectives on management: Translation of practices across organizations, institutions and geographies. Journal of Management Studies, 57(1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, B., Lago, U., & Liu, F. 2013. Reinventing giants: How Chinese global competitor Haier has changed the way big company transform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 756785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlan, A., Galeazzo, A., & Paggiaro, A. 2019. Organizational and perceived learning in the workplace: A multilevel perspective on employees’ problem solving. Organization Science, 30(2): 280297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganz, S. C. 2020. Hyperopic search: Organizations learning about managers learning about strategies. Organization Science, 31(4): 821838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grag, V., Walters, B. A., & Priem, R. L. 2003. Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24(8): 725744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heslin, P. A., & Keating, L. A. 2017. In learning mode? The role of mindsets in derailing and enabling experiential leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 28(3): 367384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1): 104121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, A. S. 1990. Mapping strategic thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ingram, A. E., Lewis, M. W., Barton, S., & Gartner, W. B. 2016. Paradox and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 40(1): 161-176.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Bednarek, R. 2018. Toward a social practice theory of relational competing. Strategic Management Journal, 39(3): 794829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & , 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): 433462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., , J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3): 245280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jing, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2014. A Yin-Yang model of organizational change: The case of CBG. Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 5580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, J., & Chen, W. 2017. A road map of the paradoxical mind: Expanding cognitive theories on organizational paradox. In Jarzabkowski, P., Langely, A., Lewis, M., Smith, W., & M. L. A. The Oxford Handbook of organizational paradox.Google Scholar
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. 2017. Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 539560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, J., & Sadler-Smith, E. 2019. Paradox and dual processes: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Management Review, 21(2): 162184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ku, H. M. 1906. The universal order, or conduct of life. Shanghai, China: Shanghai Mercury Ltd.Google Scholar
Kunisch, S., Bartunek, J. M., Mueller, J., & Huy, Q. N. 2017. Time in strategic change research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2): 10051064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, G. K., Lampel, J., & Shapira, Z. 2020. After the storm has passed: Translating crisis experience into useful knowledge. Organization Science, 31(4): 10371051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legge, J. 1963. The I-Ching. New York: Dover Publication, Inc.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Argote, L. 2020. Group and organizational learning: Past, present and future. In Argote, L. & Levine, J. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning: 320. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, M. W., & Kelemen, M. L. 2002. Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55(2): 251275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 1998. Toward a geocentric framework of organizational form: A holistic, dynamic and paradoxical approach. Organization Studies, 19(5): 829861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. 2014. Can Yin-Yang guide Chinese indigenous management research?. Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, P. P. 2014. The unique value of Yin-Yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 321332.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 & Strategic Management, 23(1): 4277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. 2020. Quantum approach to organizational paradox: A Copenhagen perspective. Academy of Management Review, published online on 27 May 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0480Google Scholar
Liu, L. A., Chua, C. H., & Stahl, G. 2010. Quality of communication experience: Definition, measurement, and implications for intercultural negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 469487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L. A., Friedman, R., Barry, B., Gelfand, M. J., & Zhang, Z.-X. 2012. The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2): 269304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 57125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 7187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshak, R. J. 1993. Lewin meets Confucius: A review of the OD model of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(4): 393415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D., & Sardais, C. 2015. Bifurcating time: How entrepreneurs reconcile the paradoxical demands of the Job. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 39(3): 489512.Google Scholar
Mintzberg, H. 1978. Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24(9): 934948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1): 2645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., & Paletz, S. B. F. 2020. Collective paradoxical frames: Managing tensions in learning and innovation. In Argote, L. & Levine, J. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning: 429451. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mom, T. J. M., Chang, Y.-Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. P. 2019. A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(7): 30093034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morel, B., & Ramanujam, R. 1999. Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems. Organization Science, 10(3): 278293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemmerer, B. 2011. The cognitive perspective in strategy: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 37(1): 305351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obolensky, N. 2014. Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Farnham, UK: Gower.Google Scholar
Pearce, C. L., Wassenaar, C. L., Berson, Y., & Tuval-Mashiach, R. 2019. Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradies, C., Tunarosa, A., Lewis, M. W., & Courtois, J. 2020. From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: The social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies: 123. doi: 10.1177/0170840620907200Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. G. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 65171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4): 685695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2018. The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8): 15071526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. 2020. Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1997. Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22(1): 4879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramoglou, S., & Tsang, E. W. K. 2016. A realist perspective of entrepreneurship: Opportunities as propensities. Academy of Management Review, 41(3): 410434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. 2014. A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6): 18601877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenhead, J., Franco, L. A., Grint, K., Friedland, B. 2019. Complexity theory and leadership practice: A review, a critique, and some recommendations. Leadership Quarterly, 30(5): doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. 2004. Communication research measures: A sourcebook. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. 2018. Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8): 14901506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2019. Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17(1): 107119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, D. P. 1980. Construct validity in organizational behavior. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2): 343. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. 2017. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 341364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. 2017. Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3)–(4):463488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sleesman, D. 2019. Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision-making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 15921623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. 2019. Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1): 144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. 2017. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 303317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381403.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, J., & Lee, K. 2014. The Samsung way. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tempelaar, M. P., & Rosenkranz, N. A. 2019. Switching hats: The effect of role transition on individual ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(4): 15171539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiétart, R. A., & Forgues, B. 1995. Chaos theory and organizations. Organization Science, 6(1): 1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: sage Publications.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 2009. Making sense of the organization: The impermanent organization (Volume 2). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Zhang, R. 2007. Raising Haier. Harvard Business Review, 85(2): 141146.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Transparadox Process of Decision Making
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A Transparadox Process of Decision Making
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A Transparadox Process of Decision Making
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *