Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to investigate the key determinants of knowledge sharing and collaboration using Web 2.0 technologies by exploring the reasons for and barriers to employees' active participation in its various platforms within a large multinational firm.Design/methodology/approach -This study is based on a case study design. In total, 11 in-depth interviews were conducted. In addition, secondary data was collected. The data was analysed using a grounded approach.Findings -The authors reveal four key determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies: history, outcome expectations, perceived organizational or management support and trust.Research limitations/implications -The limitations are related to the small sample size and the assumptions on which the study was based. First, Web 2.0 technologies were perceived as a single set of technologies whose adoption and use is determined by the same range of factors. Secondly, the study assumes that knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 is an effective means to collaborate.Practical implications -Managerial recommendations derived from this study include: playing an active role in supporting Web 2.0 technologies as a strategic knowledge management initiative, clearly communicating its benefits, providing the necessary training and finally, rewarding participation.Originality/value -Online collaboration tools have become the knowledge management tool of choice for an increasing number of organisations. However, very little is known about factors leading to their success or failure. This study narrows this gap by offering unique empirical evidence from TechCo (pseudonym), one of the largest companies deploying such technologies.

Please refer to published version for the most recent bibliographic citation information. If a published version is known of, the repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing it.

The organizational ambidexterity literature conceptualizes exploration and exploitation as conflicting activities, and proposes separation-oriented approaches to accomplish ambidexterity; namely, structural and temporal separation. We argue that viewing ambidexterity from the lens of paradox theory enables us to move beyond separation-oriented prescriptions toward synthesis or transcendence of paradoxical poles; as well as toward longitudinal explorations of how paradoxical poles dynamically interrelate over time. In this way, the conceptual repertoire of ambidexterity theory is enriched and empirical research can more closely and pragmatically track practice.

How do paradoxical tensions become salient in organizations over time? Ambidexterity and paradox studies have, thus far, primarily focused on how tensions inside organizations are managed after they have been rendered salient for actors. Using a longitudinal, embedded case study of four strategic business units (SBUs) within a media organization, we theorize the role of the top management team (TMT) leader's practices in enabling tensions to become salient for their respective lower level managers when there are initial differences in how tensions are interpreted across levels. Our findings extend a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing by adding interpretive context as an enabling condition that shapes the emergence of salience through the provision of a constellation of cues that guide sensemaking. Informed by a practicebased perspective on paradox, we also contribute a conceptual model of leadership as practice, and outline the implications for ambidexterity studies. Keywords:Ambidexterity, interpretive context, innovation, leadership, paradox, practice, salience 2 Becoming Salient: The TMT Leader's Role in Shaping the Interpretive Context of Paradoxical TensionsOrganizations are rife with tensions, but some tensions are strategically more important than others (Cameron & Quinn, 1988;Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). In particular, paradoxical tensions represent demands that are contradictory but must be pursued interdependently to sustain longterm organizational performance (Lewis, 2000;Smith & Lewis, 2011). Although a growing number of studies have begun to unpack how actors respond to paradoxical tensions once they become aware of them (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), we still know relatively little about the early stages of how paradoxical tensions become salient in the first place.Such an examination is important for theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, identifying changes between the early and later stages in dealing with paradox can provide important clues about the nature and construction of paradox in organizations (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Practically, the timely and effective recognition of paradoxical tensions is important for managers who seek to drive improvements in organizational performance Smith, 2014). We know from prior work that actors are better placed to have an engaged response to paradox once they are made aware of the tension (Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011). Yet, the existence of tension in the environment is not enough to automatically trigger action: tensions can remain latent and go unperceived or unnoticed by organizational actors for years (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991;Gilbert, 2005). Our paper focuses on this issue, and specifically the role of the TMT leader in making paradoxical tensions salient to others.Paradox theory adopts two underlying assumptions about the nature of paradox that are relevant in this regard . First, paradoxical tensions are inherent in organizational life and exist 'beyond the will or power of managem...