Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development

Schad, Jonathan; Lewis, Marianne W.; Smith, Wendy K.

doi:10.1177/1476127018786218

Cited by 83 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While we use wicked problems to illustrate our argument, our proposed systems perspective on paradox provides insights into the complex tensions that contemporary organizations face. By extending its boundaries, our perspective sharpens paradox theory's conceptual core in several ways (Schad et al, ).…”

Section: Discussion and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 95%

Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research

Schad

Bansal

2018

J Management Studies

Self Cite

171

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paradox theory has fundamentally changed how researchers think about organizational tensions by emphasizing their oppositions and their interdependencies. Yet, most paradox studies focus on salient, perceived tensions, ignoring latent, nested tensions and their complex interconnections. This partial view is rooted in the paradox literature focusing on the epistemological realm (actors' perception of tensions) while disregarding the ontological realm (tensions' underlying reality). The focus on the epistemological aspects of the tensions impedes researchers from moving to more intricate insights into paradox, which could help address the realities of complex issues, such as wicked problems. We propose a systems perspective on paradox that discriminates the epistemological understandings from the ontological realities of tensions. By revealing the ontology of tensions, the underlying complexity becomes empirically interpretable. We illustrate the power of this perspective by offering two research strategies that can help researchers and organizations apprehend paradoxes grounded in systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 95%

Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research

Schad

Bansal

2018

J Management Studies

Self Cite

171

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A wealth of organizational and strategy research has alerted us to the prevalence and importance of paradox in organizational life (Cunha and Putnam, 2017;Schad, Lewis, Raisch and Smith, 2016;Smith and Lewis, 2011;Schad, Lewis and Smith, 2018). A gap nonetheless remains in our understanding of how paradoxes are constructed across organizational boundaries (Lê and Bednarek, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge

Jarzabkowski

Bednarek

Chalkias

et al. 2018

Strategic Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we outline a methodological framework for studying the inter-organizational aspects of paradoxes and specify this in relation to grand challenges. Grand challenges are large-scale, complex, enduring problems that affect large populations, have a strong social component, and appear intractable. Our methodological insights draw from our study of the insurance protection gap, a grand challenge that arises when economic losses from large-scale disaster significantly exceed the insured loss, leading to economic and social hardship for the affected communities. We provide insights into collecting data to uncover the paradoxical elements inherent in grand challenges and then propose three analytical techniques for studying inter-organizational paradoxes: zooming in and out, tracking problematization, and tracking boundaries and boundary organizations. These techniques can be used to identify and follow how contradictions and interdependences emerge and dynamically persist within interorganizational interactions and how these shape and are shaped by the unfolding dynamics of the grand challenge. Our techniques and associated research design help advance paradox theorizing by moving it to the inter-organizational and systemic level. This paper also illustrates paradox as a powerful lens through which to further our understanding of grand challenges.

show abstract

“…These studies propose that some tensions might be more important than others, and that managers should use their scarce resources to address the underlying processes rather than the paradoxes themselves. Schad, Lewis, and Smith (2019) call for more investigations of dynamics and suggest that new contexts can push our understanding of these. In HQ-subsidiary relationships, we observe that ''strategy tensions'' and ''coordination tensions'' are interwoven, but on the same level at the core of the strategy, as the denial to manage either one of them results in a stabilizing loop with a suboptimal equilibrium.…”

Section: Proposition 4bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While all multinational organizations face the challenge of managing tensions between local integration and global responsiveness, they are increasingly required to pursue additional, often paradoxical, objectives -such as social and commercial goals. However, we know little about how these tensions at the core of the MNC strategy interact. Based on an inductive qualitative study of four headquarters-subsidiary relationships in a Latin American Multinational Hybrid Organization, we develop a model showing the interplay of multiple tensions and management approaches to address them. This allows us to contribute to research on subsidiary roles, which we found to differ depending on how multiple tensions are addressed. Furthermore, we add to the literature on hybridity in multinational organizations by pointing out how regional differences between units of a single organization unfold. Finally, we provide some practical recommendations for the management of multinational hybrid organizations. Journal of International Business Studies (2020) 51, 906-932.

show abstract

Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development

Cited by 83 publications

References 76 publications

Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research

Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research

Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge

Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About