Search results

Accumulated evidence suggests that efforts at diversity management (DM) yield mixed results or even fail in terms of promoting workforce diversity. Previous scholarly attempts to explain the mixed results of DM initiatives provided only partial understanding. This study applies a paradox perspective to better understand the challenges of DM from the vantage point of diversity managers, who play a central role in the promotion and implementation of diversity initiatives.

In-depth interviews with diversity managers in large business organizations in Israel explored practitioners' conceptions of the challenges underlying the implementation of diversity initiatives. A grounded theory approach was utilized.

The findings reveal the emergence of paradox: diversity initiatives generate organizational tensions that undermine their success and hence amplify the need for further diversity interventions. Three distinct paradoxes are identified: necessary change vs desire for stability; bureaucratic control vs flexible procedures; and long-term business gains vs short-term losses. Diversity managers utilize two opposing strategies to contend with these paradoxes.

This study does not represent voices of diverse employees or of top executives. The data focused on mid-level practitioners' descriptions of DM challenges and their methods of contending with them.

The findings shed light on an effective strategy of contending with paradox. Recognizing paradox and navigating it properly may greatly advance the success of costly DM change interventions. Implications are suggested regarding the academic education and training of DM practitioners.

Based on the paradox framework, which offers a novel vantage point for understanding the challenges of implementing DM, the findings contribute to the scholarly understanding of the limited success of DM interventions.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the theoretical contribution of Li’s (2016) “Yin-Yang balancing” approach of paradox management, as well as its future development to guide paradox management research across the east and west contexts.

It begins by recognizing the importance of paradox management research, especially the indigenous epistemological approach as Li (2016) has followed. The authors take “being” and “becoming” ontology toward social reality as the basic premise in this commentary, and summarize the knowledge that the study has contributed to existing literature.

The “Yin-Yang balancing” approach can extend the knowledge about paradox management phenomena at least from four aspects: the “either/and” frame to view a paradox system, the importance of “seed” or “threshold” in defining moderate rather than extreme groups, duality map as a novel tool for paradox management, and comparison of being and becoming ontology.

Based on the comparison of “being” and “becoming” ontological view, the authors suggest to further develop this “Yin-Yang balancing” approach by emphasizing the following issues: eastern culture does not have exclusive ownership of the “becoming” ontology toward the world, elaboration of alternative theoretical explanation to win out the identity approach about organizational existence, the linkage between the “Yin-Yang balancing” epistemological system and process research method, and boundary condition of the “Yin-Yang balancing” approach.

The purpose of this paper is to adopt a paradox lens for dovetailing the human resource management sub-domains of talent management (TM) and diversity management (DM), in the attempt to create closer alignment between the two.

The authors review paradox theory, TM and DM literatures and formulate a paradox that becomes apparent when considering TM and DM simultaneously.

The authors coin this tension as the “exclusion-inclusion paradox,” highlighting that TM and DM reflect contradictory, yet interrelated principles: organizations promote exclusion through a TM architecture that focuses on the identification and development of a few selected employees, while simultaneously, organizations promote inclusion, in the attempt to minimize existing inequalities for traditionally marginalized groups.

Once uncovered, the exclusion-inclusion paradox enables organizational actors to make choices on whether to respond actively or defensively to the paradox. The authors argue for active responses in order to work through the paradox.

This is the first paper adopting a paradox lens in order to interweave the DM literature with TM literature in the attempt to explain how DM and TM constitute contradicting yet interrelated principles.

This paper aims to advance the paradox management perspective by applying it to open innovation networks in Finland and argues that paradox management is an important explicit logic to consider in the management of open innovation.

Interviews sought the views of diverse network participants, including companies, universities, and government agencies.

The open innovation networks exhibited many of the same tensions discussed in innovation initiatives within organizations, but additional complexities arose from both internal and external factors.

The study examined open innovation networks when the collaboration in the networks was still in early phases. Thus, the study does not capture the paradoxes, underlying tensions, and management approaches as they change in later phases.

The open innovation networks require the ability to excel in managing a set of paradoxical tensions using a complex repertoire of approaches. Open innovation can be seen as an important way to create dynamicity and change, and if managers are able to manage tensions using a complex set of behavioral approaches, they can more likely achieve increased innovation.

The open innovation literature recognizes paradoxes but does not address their management directly. This paper deepens the understanding of paradoxical tensions and their management across open innovation networks that take the form of public‐private partnerships.

This paper aims to examine why the sustainability paradox exists and how it unfolds by focusing on intraorganizational dynamics. It explores how organizational actors perceive and make sense of sustainability and thereby contribute to the sustainability paradox.

In a case study on IREN, an Italian listed multi-utility with considerable engagements with sustainability, data collection through interviews, e-mails and document analysis revealed contradictions raised by directors and middle managers. Findings were analyzed by iterating with the literature used to frame this study, which combines organizational sensemaking, paradoxes and management control.

The sustainability paradox comprises various facets. Directors and middle managers interpret sustainability differently depending on their role within the organization and their perceptions of the concept itself. Different interpretations thus occur within and across organizational levels and functions, impacting how sustainability is implemented and monitored. The use of parallel management control systems (MCSs) reflects multiple and fragmented sensemaking, which explains the facets of the sustainability paradox.

Although this work illuminates the role played by individuals at top- and middle-management organizational levels and MCSs in relation to the sustainability paradox, more research is needed on how individuals make sense of sustainability at the lowest organizational levels.

Organizations claiming commitment to sustainability must establish communication forms on the practicalities of sustainability throughout the organization to stimulate shared sensemaking and the design and use of inclusive MCSs.

This paper explains why and how organizations unconsciously enact various facets of the sustainability paradox.

The primary purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of viewing paradoxes, which are commonly‐accepted logical perspectives that appear contradictory, as being useful for organizational learning and to show why organizational paradoxes need to be managed integratively.

The cultural industries (those that promote art, music and entertainment) are used as a backdrop for developing propositions that explain the benefits of dynamically shifting between poles of a paradox and the relationship between elements of managing multiple paradoxes integratively and organizational outcomes.

It is expected that organizations which move between the poles of paradoxes are more likely to increase organizational knowledge about their capabilities and to enhance their ability to deal with paradoxes.

Organizational researchers should consider identifying the direction and rate of movement along the poles of paradoxes by organizations when studying the appropriateness of various organizational methods for achieving outcomes such as growth or performance. Future research should examine a larger variety of paradoxes in order to increase understanding of the appropriateness of their integrative management.

Managers should become familiar with the speed and direction of movement (organizational change) between the poles of organizational paradoxes before making operational and strategic decisions. In addition, managers should be cognizant of the variety of paradoxes present in their organization and of the need for their integrative management.

The paper describes how movement along the poles of organizational paradox enhances organizational learning, as well as the importance of managing organizational paradoxes integratively.

There is a growing desire for more scientific and technical knowledge regarding Africa. This is because Africa has the potential and opportunity to generate impactful research. However, this potential is not optimized because of several constraints, including the lack of systematic reviews and models of knowledge management and paradoxical trends in Africa. The purpose of this paper is to review studies on knowledge management and associated paradoxes in Africa and a paradox-conscious African knowledge management model. The autochthonous African model that the authors propose has implications for global knowledge management.

The authors review studies on knowledge management and paradoxes on Africa.

The authors propose a model and identify 12 paradoxes broadly categorized as industrial, political and social.

The paradoxical tensions characteristic of Africa may be considered integral to business and policy rather than local expressions to be solved through international “best practice.”

The model this paper propose enables theoretical and empirical studies of knowledge management sensitive to the paradoxical tensions associated with autochthonous management knowledge and autochthonous knowledge management.

The purpose of this paper is to address the paradox that individuals face in seeking to both generate new ideas and be committed to delivering standardised processes in a creative industry. The authors explore this tension in order to better understand how synergistic benefits are reaped at the intersection of these competing demands.

The paper adopts a longitudinal case study approach inside a global media organisation in the creative industries sector. Data derived from participant observations, manager interviews, administered survey instruments, and archival documentation.

The authors find that creative organisations experience explore/exploit paradoxes which are nested at three levels: knowledge, learning and motivation. Further, the authors find that managers are able to respond to competing tensions through organisational processes that allow differentiation/integration simultaneously. These management responses are supported and sustained by both structural and contextual organisational forms.

First, the authors provide a clearer theoretical explanation of paradox in creative organisations by accounting for competing demands to explore and exploit through nested tensions. Second, the authors extend the understanding of management responses to these paradox by showing how managers balance both demands simultaneously rather than cumulatively over time, thereby offering insight into how managers behave over time. Third, the authors outline the supporting role of organisational form in sustaining management responses within creative organisations at the same time in order to reap synergistic benefits.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how paradox emerges during a planned change initiative to improve and dramatically transform inter‐agency information sharing. Based on interviews with key decision makers, the authors interrogate the relationships among institutional contradictions, emergent dualities, the communicative management of related organizational stakeholder paradoxes, and the consequences of enacted solutions.

Interviews with government leaders serve as the data source. These decision makers are from justice agencies participating in planning an information‐sharing program to better protect citizens and their agencies' workforce.

The data suggests that Seo and Creed's institutional contradiction “isomorphism conflicting with divergent interests” gave rise to three interdependent dualities: stakeholder self‐interest/collective good, stakeholder inclusion/exclusion, and emergent stakeholder consensus/leader driven decision making. These dualities were implicated in the enactment of paradox and its management. No matter what strategy the managers used, the consequences themselves were paradoxical, rooted in the same dualities that were originally present.

The authors sought to trace the outcomes of how leaders managed the poles of dualities, and found evidence of unintended consequences that were intriguing in their own right and were linked to stakeholder considerations. The paper underscores the importance of communication in the representation of paradoxes and how they were managed, and the unintended consequences of the solutions.

Leaders' articulations of paradox can be tapped for improving change efforts.

Whereas, institutional contradictions have been examined in reference to emerging paradox, and while paradoxical solutions have been studied widely, little research has investigated how institutional contradictions become simultaneously embedded in the process and the outcomes of organizational change.

This paper addresses decision-making for commercial real estate (CRE) firms and professionals within the context of rapid technological innovations capable of business model disruption. It considers the paradoxical notion of the need for CRE firms to become ambidextrous by simultaneously exploiting their existing business model and exploring possible opportunities and threats. The paper develops a practical approach, the paradox map, for dealing with this paradoxical problem.

This qualitative research draws on work from organizational management, leadership, social sciences and technology. This research frames the definition and development of an ambidextrous mindset and its components. Paradox management is explored as a possible source of useful tools.

The ambidextrous mindset is a paradox in that exploit and explore are ongoing interrelated opposing forces. Further, the mindset is the product of a number of sub-paradoxes that act as levers for its development and adjustment. The paradox map is developed to facilitate dealing with numerous paradoxes.

The paradox map is a useful tool for commercial real-estate firms to understand and develop an ambidextrous mindset.

Commercial real estate is experiencing a wave of substantive technological disruption in the proptech marketplace and beyond. This paper attempts to clarify the paradox of innovation and its underlying sub-paradoxes to help professionals navigate the interrelated landscape of exploiting past products and exploring innovations.