LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Schad, J.; Lewis, M. W.; Raisch, S.; Smith, W. K. (2016)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HD28
Paradox studies offer vital and timely insights into an array of organizational tensions. Yet this field stands at a critical juncture. Over the past 25 years, management scholars have drawn foundational insights from philosophy and psychology to apply a paradox lens to organizational phenomena. Yet extant studies selectively leverage ancient wisdom, adopting some key insights while abandoning others. Using a structured content analysis to review the burgeoning management literature, we surface six key themes, which represent the building blocks of a meta-theory of paradox. These six themes received varying attention in extant studies: paradox scholars emphasize types of paradoxes, collective approaches, and outcomes, but pay less attention to relationships within paradoxes, individual approaches, and dynamics. As this analysis suggests, management scholars have increasingly simplified the intricate, often messy phenomena of paradox. Greater simplicity renders phenomena understandable and testable, however, oversimplifying complex realities can foster reductionist and incomplete theories. We therefore propose a future research agenda targeted at enriching a meta-theory of paradox by reengaging these less developed themes. Doing so can sharpen the focus of this field, while revisiting its rich conceptual roots to capture the intricacies of paradox. This future research agenda leverages the potential of paradox across diverse streams of management science.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Caligiuri, P., & Thomas, D. C. (2013). From the editors: How to write a high-quality review. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(6), 547-553.
    • Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539-553.
    • Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
    • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. P. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
    • Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of Physics. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
    • Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Boland, R. J., Jr. (2012). Dialectics of collective minding: Contradictory appropriations of information technology in a high-risk project. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1081-1108.
    • Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207-218.
    • Chan-Serafin, S., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (2013). How does religion matter and why? Religion and the organizational sciences. Organization Science, 24(5), 1585-1600.
    • Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese 'middle way' perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2/3), 179-199.
    • Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the competition-cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288-304.
    • Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (2011). The relational perspective as a business mindset: Managerial implications for East and West. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 6-18.
    • Chen, M.-J. (2014). Becoming ambicultural: A personal quest, and aspiration for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 119-137.
    • Chreim, S. (2005). The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of organizational identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 567-593.
    • Chung, C. C., & Beamish, P. W. (2010). The trap of continual ownership change in international equity joint ventures. Organization Science, 21(5), 995-1015.
    • Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
    • Clegg, S. R. (2002). General introduction. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483-503.
    • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
    • Confucius. (1977). The Four books : Confucian analects, the great learning, the doctrine of the mean, the work of Mencius (J. Legge, Trans.). Taipei: Wen shi zhe chubanshe.
    • Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571-612.
    • Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P., Vera, D., & Cunha, J. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 129-145.
    • Cunha, J. V., Clegg, S. R., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management, paradox, and permanent dialectics. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 11-40). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    • Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-1213.
    • Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371-382.
    • Dameron, S., & Torset, C. (2014). The discursive construction of strategists' subjectivities: Towards a paradox lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 291-319.
    • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11(1), 77-101.
    • De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83- 107.
    • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147.
    • Demb, A., & Neubauer, F.-F. (1992). The corporate board: Confronting the paradoxes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    • Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809- 837.
    • Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in the plural. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 211-283.
    • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524- 540.
    • Derrida, J. (1972). Positions. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
    • Devinney, T. M. (2013). Is microfoundational thinking critical to management thought and practice? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 81-84.
    • Dobrow, S. R., Smith, W. K., & Posner, M. A. (2011). Managing the grading paradox: Leveraging the power of choice in the classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 261-276.
    • Dogan, M. (2001). Paradigms in the social sciences. In N. J. Smeltser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 11023-11027). Oxford: Elsevier.
    • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
    • Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    • Drach-Zahavy, A., & Freund, A. (2007). Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(4), 423-450.
    • Drummond, H. (1998). Is escalation always irrational? Organization Studies, 19(6), 911-929.
    • Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus paradox: an analysis of a totally destructive system. Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 176-184.
    • Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies - Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5-34.
    • Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554.
    • Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 295-340.
    • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
    • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Westcott, B. J. (1988). Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just-in-time manufacturing. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
    • Ellis, A. P. J., Mai, K. M., & Christian, J. S. (2013). Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal fault lines in groups: A categorization-elaboration approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 948-961.
    • Elsbach, K. D., & Pratt, M. G. (2007). The Physical Environment in Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 181-224.
    • Engels, F. (trans. 1946). Dialectics of nature (C. Dutt, Trans.). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    • Fairhurst, G.T. & Putnam, L.L. (2014). Organizational discourse analysis. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. (3rd, ed., pp. 271-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
    • Fang, T. (2010). Asian management research needs more self-confidence: Reflection on Hofstede (2007) and beyond. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27(1), 155-170.
    • Fang, T. (2012). Yin yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25-50.
    • Farjoun, M. (2002). The dialectics of institutional development in emergent and turbulent fields: The history of pricing conventions in the on-line database industry. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 848-874.
    • Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225.
    • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.
    • Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632.
    • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Company.
    • Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 653-666.
    • Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O'Connor, E. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 32-55.
    • Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180-1198.
    • Ford, J. D., & Backoff, R. W. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 81-121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
    • Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradictions, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756-785.
    • Foss, N. J. (2011). Why micro-foundations for resource-based theory are needed and what they may look like. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1413-1428.
    • Frankl, V. E. (1975). Paradoxical intention and dereflection. Psychotherapy, 12(3), 226-237.
    • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
    • Freud, A. (1937). The ego and the mechanisms of defence (C. Baines, Trans.). London: The Hogarth Press.
    • Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593-608.
    • Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905-935.
    • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
    • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    • Girardot, N. J. (1988). Myth and meaning in early Taoism: The theme of chaos (hun-tun). Berkely and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
    • Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285-298.
    • Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. Journal of Psychology, 147(5), 435-453.
    • Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2010). Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. Human Relations, 63(6), 781-805.
    • Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 265-280.
    • Graham, P. (Ed.). (1995). Mary Parker Follett - Prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    • Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422-440.
    • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463-487.
    • Hampden-Turner, C. (1981). Maps of the mind. New York, NY: Macmillan.
    • Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    • Harris, A. S. (1996). Living with paradox: An introduction to Jungian psychology. Albany, NY: Brooks/Cole.
    • Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2011). Clean climbing, carabiners, and cultural cultivation: Developing an open-systems perspective of culture. Organization Science, 22(2), 391-412.
    • Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles executives play: CEOs, behavioral complexity, and firm performance. Human Relations, 46(5), 543-574.
    • Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324-343.
    • Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a management team. Organization Science, 8(3), 275-288.
    • Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1993). Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505-527.
    • Hayek, F. A. (1982). Law, legislation and liberty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    • Hegel, G. W. F. (1807/1977). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Hegel, G. W. F. (1812/1998). Hegel's Science of Logic (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.
    • Hobbes, T. (1651/1981). Leviathan (C. MacPherson Ed.). London: Penguin Classics.
    • Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590-621.
    • Kodama, M. (2003a). Strategic innovation in traditional big business: Case studies of two Japanese companies. Organization Studies, 24(2), 235-268.
    • Kodama, M. (2003b). Transforming an old-economy company into a new economy: The case study of a mobile multimedia business in Japan. Technovation, 23(3), 239-250.
    • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
    • Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61-72.
    • Kreiner, K., & Schultz, M. (1993). Informal collaboration in R&D. The formation of networks across organizations. Organization Studies, 14(2), 189-209.
    • Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B. R., & Kataria, N. (2015). Elasticity and the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together while we're pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 981-1011.
    • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA; London: SAGE.
    • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (2d ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    • Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A., & Greenberg, D. (2012). Cross-domain identity transition during liminal periods: Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1449-1471.
    • Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110-141.
    • Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., Wright, P., & Kroll, M. (2006). Paradox and theorizing within the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 115-131.
    • Lado, A. A., Dant, R. R., & Tekleab, A. G. (2008). Trust-opportunism paradox, relationalism, and performance in interfirm relationships: evidence from the retail industry. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 401-423.
    • Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5(3), 271- 282.
    • Langley, A., & Sloan, P. (2011). Organizational change and dialectic processes. In D. D. Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 261- 275). London: Routledge.
    • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152-1189.
    • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109-155.
    • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
    • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111-125.
    • Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
    • Murray, J. Y., & Kotabe, M. (1999). Sourcing strategies of U.S. service companies: A modified transaction-cost analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 20(9), 791-809.
    • Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19-33.
    • Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2002). Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organization Science, 13(5), 547-566.
    • Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1245-1264.
    • O'Neill, H. M., Pouder, R. W., & Buchholtz, A. K. (1998). Patterns in the diffusion of strategies across organizations: Insights from the innovation diffusion literature. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 98-114.
    • O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185-206.
    • O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
    • Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. D. (2004). Conceptualizing social science paradoxes using the diversity and similarity curves model: Illustrations from the work/play and theory novelty/continuity paradoxes. Human Relations, 57(11), 1449-1477.
    • Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
    • Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
    • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.
    • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2015). Exploring material-discursive practices. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 697-705.
    • Osono, E., Shimizu, N., & Takeuchi, H. (2008). Extreme Toyota: Radical contradictions that drive success at the world's best manufacturer. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
    • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.
    • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445.
    • Patil, S. V., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Punctuated incongruity: A new approach to managing tradeoffs between conformity and deviation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 155-171.
    • Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Cultures, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-759.
    • Pentland, B. T., Haerem, T., & Hillison, D. (2011). The (n)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22(6), 1369-1383.
    • Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2007). Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 563-586.
    • Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599-620.
    • Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338.
    • Plato. (trans. 1963). Cratylus. Parmenides. Greater Hippias. Lesser Hippias (H. N. Fowler, Trans.). London: Heinemann.
    • Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies, 35(4), 551-585.
    • Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess: The creative process in art, science, and other fields. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Schepker, D. J., Oh, W. Y., Martynov, A., & Poppo, L. (2014). The many futures of contracts: Moving beyond structure and safeguarding to coordination and adaptation. Journal of Management, 40(1), 193-225.
    • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259-284.
    • Schmitt, A., & Raisch, S. (2013). Corporate turnarounds: The duality of retrenchment and recovery. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1216-1244.
    • Schneider, K. J. (1990). The paradoxical self: Toward an understanding of our contradictory nature. New York, NY: Insight Books.
    • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251-1262.
    • Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529-557.
    • Schwandt, D. R. (2005). When managers become philosophers: Integrating learning with sensemaking. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 176-192.
    • Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2006). Coercion versus care: Using irony to make sense of organizational surveillance. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 934-961.
    • Sewell, W. H. (1989). Some reflections on the golden age of interdisciplinary social psychology. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 1-16.
    • Sillince, J. A. A., & Brown, A. D. (2009). Multiple organizational identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62(12), 1829-1856.
    • Silva, T., Cunha, M. P., Clegg, S. R., Neves, P., Rego, A., & Rodrigues, R. A. (2014). Smells like team spirit: Opening a paradoxical black box. Human Relations, 67(3), 287-310.
    • Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision-making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493-513.
    • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531-549.
    • Smaling, A. (2005). The Chatton-Ockham strategy; an alternative to the simplicity principle. In D. Aerts, B. D'Hooghe & N. Note (Eds.), Worldviews, science and us: Redemarcating knowledge and its social and ethical implications (pp. 38-58). Singapore; Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
    • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of london: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932-970.
    • Smith, A., & Graetz, F. (2006). Organizing dualities and strategizing for change. Strategic Change, 15(5), 231-239.
    • Smith, A. D., & Zeithaml, C. (1996). Garbage cans and advancing hypercompetition: The creation and exploitation of new capabilities and strategic flexibility in two regional bell operating companies. Organization Science, 7(4), 388-399.
    • Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009); Farjoun (2010); Klarner & Raisch (2013); Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008); Schmitt
    • & Raisch (2013); Smith (2014); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Dameron & Torset (2014); Smith et al. (2010); Sundaramurthy & Lewis (2003); Wareham et al. (2014)
    • Jay (2013); Margolis & Walsh (2003); Smith et al. (2012)
    • Ashforth & Reingen (2014); Chreim (2005); Harrison & Corley (2011); Lynn (2005)
    • Orlikowski (1992); Orlikowski & Robey (1991); Pentland et al. (2011)
    • Andriopoulos (2003); Rosso (2014)
    • Ellis et al. (2013) Murnighan & Conlon (1991)
    • Miron-Spektor, Gino, et al. (2011)
    • Denison et al. (1995); Gebert et al. (2010)
    • Lüscher & Lewis (2008)
    • Andriopolous & Lewis (2009); Bradach (1997); Schreyögg & Sydow (2010)
    • Lewis (2000); Lüscher & Lewis (2008); Smith & Lewis (2011)
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009); Lavie et al. (2010); Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Farjoun (2010); Graetz & Smith (2008); Klarner & Raisch (2013); Pentland et al. (2011)
    • Das & Teng (2000)
    • Adler et al. (1999); Bradach (1997); Das & Teng (2000); Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Gebert et al. (2010); Michaud (2014); Sundaramurthy & Lewis (2003); Wareham et al. (2014)
    • Ashforth & Reingen (2014)
    • Deephouse (1999); Harrison & Corley (2011); Wareham et al. (2014)
    • Chung & Beamish (2010); Das & Teng (2000); Lado et al. (1997)
    • Das & Teng (2000); Jay (2013); Margolis & Walsh (2003); Scherer et al. (2013); Smith et al. (2012)
    • Buenger et al. (1996); Chreim (2005); Gebert et al. (2010); Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004)
    • Farjoun (2010); Graetz & Smith (2008); Khazanchi et al. (2007); Orlikowski (1992); Orlikowski & Robey
    • (1991); Schmitt & Raisch (2013); Schreyögg & Sydow (2010); Smith & Lewis (2011)
    • Adler et al. (1999); Denis et al. (2012); Jay (2013); Lewis & Grimes (1999); Margolis & Walsh (2003)
    • Chung & Beamish (2010); Lüscher & Lewis (2008); Smith & Lewis (2011)
    • Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008); Smith (2014); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • O'Neill et al. (1998)
    • Chung & Beamish (2010); Im & Rai (2014); Sydow et al. (2011)
    • Adler et al. (1999); Klarner & Raisch (2013); Schmitt & Raisch (2013); Velu & Stiles (2013)
    • Michaud (2014); Smith (2014); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004); Khazanchi et al. (2007)
    • Ashforth & Reingen (2014); Blatt (2009); Drach-Zahavy & Freund (2007); Gebert et al. (2010); Miron-Spektor,
    • Gino, et al. (2011)
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009, 2010); Bradach (1997); Schreyögg & Sydow (2010); Wareham et al. (2014)
    • Lüscher & Lewis (2008); Murnighan & Conlon (1991); Rosso (2014); Smith et al. (2012)
    • Bansal et al. (2012); Bradach (1997); Lavie et al. (2010); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Adler et al. (1999); Chung & Beamish (2010); Klarner & Raisch (2013); Lavie et al. (2010)
    • Adler et al. (1999); Deephouse (1999); Schmitt & Raisch (2013)
    • Adler et al. (1999); Drach-Zahavy & Freund (2007); Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004)
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009); Smith (2014); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Smith (2014)
    • Denison et al. (1995); Fiol (2002); Smith (2014); Smith et al. (2012); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Fiol (2002); Hatch (1997); Huxham & Beech (2003); Leonard-Barton (1992); Lüscher & Lewis (2008)
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009); Dameron & Torset (2014); Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004)
    • Ashforth & Reingen (2014); Kahn (1990); Leonard-Barton (1992); Lewis (2000); Vince & Broussine (1996)
    • Hahn et al. (2014); Jay (2013); Lüscher & Lewis (2008); Miron-Spektor, Gino, et al. (2011); Smith & Tushman
    • (2005); Westenholz (1993)
    • Dameron & Torset (2014); Ellis et al. (2013); Huxham & Beech (2003)
    • Denison et al. (1995); Hart & Quinn (1993)
    • Hatch (1997); Hatch & Ehrlich (1993)
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009); Fiol (2002)
    • Adler et al.(1999); Chen & Miller (2011)
    • Ashforth et al. (2014); O'Neill et al. (1998)
    • Thiétart & Forgues (1995)
    • Drummond (1998)
    • Chung & Beamish (2010); Smith et al. (2012)
    • Bartunek et al. (2000); Chung & Beamish (2010); Das & Teng (2000); Drummond (2008); Leonard-Barton
    • (1992); Smith et al. (2012); Sundaramurthy & Lewis (2003)
    • Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004); Im & Rai (2014); Nemanich & Vera (2009); Raisch & Birkinshaw (2008)
    • Gebert et al. (2010); Harvey (2014); Miron-Spektor, Gino, et al. (2011); Rosso (2014); Smith et al. (2012)
    • Denison et al. (1995) ; Drach-Zahavy & Freund (2007)
    • Huxham & Beech (2003)
    • Scherer et al. (2013)
    • Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009); Chung & Beamish (2010); Klarner & Raisch (2013); Schmitt & Raisch (2013);
    • Smith (2014); Smith & Lewis (2011); Smith & Tushman (2005)
    • Ashforth & Reingen (2014); Huber et al. (2013)
    • Bartunek et al. (2000); Boiral (2007); Chung & Beamish (2010)
    • Jay (2013); Smith (2014)
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article