Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

被引:800
作者
Schad, Jonathan [1 ]
Lewis, Marianne W. [2 ]
Raisch, Sebastian [1 ]
Smith, Wendy K. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Geneva, Geneva Sch Econ & Management, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
[2] City Univ London, Cass Business Sch, London, England
[3] Univ Delaware, Alfred Lerner Coll Business, Newark, DE 19716 USA
关键词
RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENT; ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY; INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY; STAKEHOLDER THEORY; YIN-YANG; CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIP; MANAGERIAL SENSEMAKING; BEHAVIORAL COMPLEXITY; GEOCENTRIC FRAMEWORK; STRATEGIC CHANGE;
D O I
10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 64
页数:60
相关论文
共 311 条
[91]   Team effectiveness under stress: A structural contingency approach [J].
Drach-Zahavy, Anat ;
Freund, Anat .
JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2007, 28 (04) :423-450
[92]  
Drummond H, 1998, ORGAN STUD, V19, P911, DOI 10.1177/017084069801900601
[93]   The Icarus paradox: an analysis of a totally destructive system [J].
Drummond, Helga .
JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, 2008, 23 (03) :176-184
[94]   A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies - Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements [J].
Duriau, Vincent J. ;
Reger, Rhonda K. ;
Pfarrer, Michael D. .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2007, 10 (01) :5-34
[95]  
DUTTON JE, 1991, ACAD MANAGE J, V34, P517, DOI 10.5465/256405
[96]   Cognition and Capabilities: A Multi-Level Perspective [J].
Eggers, J. P. ;
Kaplan, Sarah .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 2013, 7 (01) :295-340
[97]   BUILDING THEORIES FROM CASE-STUDY RESEARCH [J].
EISENHARDT, KM .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 1989, 14 (04) :532-550
[98]  
Eisenhardt KM., 1988, Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, P137
[99]   Examining the Asymmetrical Effects of Goal Fault lines in Groups: A Categorization-Elaboration Approach [J].
Ellis, Aleksander P. J. ;
Mai, Ke Michael ;
Christian, Jessica Siegel .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2013, 98 (06) :948-961
[100]   The Physical Environment in Organizations [J].
Elsbach, Kimberly D. ;
Pratt, Michael G. .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT ANNALS, 2007, 1 :181-224