Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

Article English OPEN
Schad, J. ; Lewis, M. W. ; Raisch, S. ; Smith, W. K. (2016)

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.
  • References (222)
    222 references, page 1 of 23

    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.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    City Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 977
Share - Bookmark