Search results

The objective of this paper is to explain the conceptual framework of paradox.

The paper adopts a theoretical approach. It outlines marketing's current and limited interest in the notion of paradox and highlights the difference between a classic paradox, the tension between transactional and relational marketing, and the Contemporary Marketing Practice (CMP) research program.

A future research agenda for paradox and marketing is speculated on, addressing issues such as likely domains for exploration, methodology, as well as the type of organizational structures and marketing leadership required. Finally, there is reflection on how paradox engineers a strong bridge between theory and practice.

The paper reveals useful information on paradox and marketing.

This study aims to propose a multi-level (bottom-up) analysis to build an organizational change capability (OCC) development model by integrating paradox and social cognitive theories. Using these theories, OCC (Level 2) is influenced by the leader’s paradox mindset (Level 1) and collective PsyCap (Level 2). The study also examined the moderating effect of magnitude to change on the effect of leader’s paradox mindset on OCC.

The proposed hypotheses were tested empirically using data from 327 respondents and 48 work teams from 21 leading private higher education institutions in Indonesia. To analyze the data, a multi-level analysis was conducted with Mplus software.

The results showed that, in a cross-level relationship, leader’s paradox mindset had a positive effect on OCC, whereas OCC mediated the effect of leader’s paradox mindset on organizational change performance. On an organizational level, collective PsyCap affected OCC, and OCC significantly mediated the relationship between collective PsyCap and organizational change performance. Moreover, the authors found a moderating effect of magnitude on change of leader’s paradox mindset to OCC.

This study used a multi-level analysis to evaluate the mechanisms of influence of leader’s paradox mindset (bottom-up) on OCC and the moderation effect of magnitude to change in an Indonesian context.

The study aims to identify the central paradoxical tensions existing in developing resilience in organisations. The main thrust of this study is to develop a thorough understanding of diverse conflicting tensions in building resilience and develop the possible strategies to surmount these tensions.

Using the case study approach, the study applied theory-elaboration strategy as this study is based on well-established literature from both digitalisation and resilience. The study uses the paradox theory lens in a case study to reconcile both theories with contextual idiosyncrasies.

The paradox theory lens provides perspectives to understand tensions during resilience development and the role of digital transformation in this process. It assesses the potential solutions for surmounting tensions in resilient operations. The mapping of workable solutions with different paradoxes and propositions has been proposed for future empirical research.

The study suggests that practitioners should not consider resilience and sustainability as mutually exclusive; instead, managers must embrace ongoing tensions to bring solutions to address these two essential organisational priorities.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first empirical study that applies paradox theory to understand how an organisation can build resilience while confronting several paradoxes. The study findings support that resilience practices can move in tandem with environmental sustainability goals rather than being usually mutually exclusive.

This paper presents paradox theory as a useful theoretical lens for researchers exploring crises such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The authors argue that paradox theory, which emphasizes a “both/and” as opposed to an “either/or” approach, is ideally suited for management control systems (MCS) research on crises.

The authors adopt a revelatory case approach to provide empirical examples of the insights that paradox theory can provide.

This paper highlights how MCS can be used to simultaneously manage short-term/operational and long-term/strategic objectives to navigate a crisis. Furthermore, it highlights how MCS can be mobilized during crises to identify and embrace opportunities.

This paper illustrates the importance of MCS focusing on not just the short-term, but also the long-term, and managing multiple objectives in assisting organizations to survive crisis.

This paper highlights the benefits of using paradox theory to understand the role of MCS in helping organizations manage crises and to use a crisis as a source of opportunity.

This study aims to qualitatively investigate when and how individuals' paradox mindset influences their individual unlearning.

This study adopted Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory approach based on constructivist ontology and interpretive epistemology. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 16 employees of a research company. The employees were asked about their perceptions of their roles and other factors that stimulated them to unlearn in a tension-setting environment.

This study developed a process model of paradox mindset for enhancing individual unlearning through three relational mechanisms, namely, enabling motivation to unlearn, understanding to unlearn and engaging in the unlearning process. The unlearning process is found to be influenced by paradoxical frames and emotions. Moreover, external factors, such as organizational changes, stimulate the adoption of paradoxical cognition and emotions while resource availability facilitates the unlearning process.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this study is the first to qualitatively investigate how a paradox mindset facilitates the process of unlearning through relational mechanisms. This model provides a holistic understanding of the cognitive, emotional and motivational processes involved in accepting the tensions of unlearning and promoting the unlearning process. The findings also have implications for research on paradox theory and the management of unlearning tensions at the micro level.

Extant paradox theory suggests that adopting paradoxical frames, which are mental templates adopted by individuals in order to embrace contradictions, will result in superior firm performance. Superior performance is achieved through learning and creativity, fostering flexibility and resilience and unleashing human capital. The creativity mechanism of paradox theory is limited by a few propositions and a rough underlying theoretical logic. Using the extant theoretical base as a platform, the paper aims to develop a more powerful theory using a computational simulation.

This paper relies on a psychologically realistic computer simulation. Using a simulation to generate ideas from stored information, one can model and manipulate the parameters that have been shown to mediate the relationship between paradoxes and creative output – defined as the number of creative ideas generated.

Simulation results suggest that the relationship between paradoxical frames and creative output is non-monotonic – contrary to previous studies. Indeed, findings suggest that paradoxical frames can reduce, rather than enhance, creative output, in at least some cases.

An important benefit of adopting paradoxical frames is their capacity to increase creative output. This assumption is challenging to test, because one cannot measure private cognitive processes related to knowledge creation. However, they can be simulated. This allows for the extension of current theory. This new theory depicts a more complete relationship between paradoxical frames and creativity by accounting for subjective differences in how paradoxical frames are experienced along two cognitive mechanisms – differentiation and integration.

The main goal of any organization is to achieve the best quality of work through employees, and managers play a very important role in this field. Managers and leaders of organizations often face with paradoxes that make decision-making difficult. The purpose of this paper is to develop a competency model for human resource managers considering the importance of the role of paradoxes for organizations.

The research methodology is of a mixed type and with an approach based on paradox theory and using theme analysis and fuzzy Delphi, it seeks to provide a model of paradoxical managers’ competence. The statistical sample included 11 experts working in the information and communication technology industry, who were selected using the snowball and judgmental sampling method.

The results of this research show that the competency model of human resource managers has three managerial, organizational and individual levels and has 15 themes including strategic partner, organizational knowledge, awareness of the industry environment, awareness of the external environment, paradoxical thinking, managerial knowledge, relationship management, resource management , leadership, human resources analyzer, information technology (IT) knowledge, personality traits, development, multitasking and cognitive competence. The most important theme identified is paradoxical thinking and familiarity with IT knowledge, and it is suggested that human resource managers working in this field should preferably study technical and engineering fields at the undergraduate level and shift to human resource management fields at the graduate level.

The distinguishing feature of this paper is the presentation of a competency model based on paradox theory. Paradoxes are part of organizational life. Therefore, there should be a paradoxical view in all organizational analysis.

The traditional dualism view regards stability and change as opposites and separate, two essential but largely incompatible and mutually exclusive elements in an organization, and it advocates contingency theories to handle the paradox situation; more recent research has adopted the paradoxical lens to highlight both the contradiction and the interdependence between the two elements. This paper aims to address how an organization pursues stability and change simultaneously, i.e., how stability and change contradictorily enable each other to promote the development of an organization.

By adopting a case study on the strategic and structural change of Signcomplex in China, this paper attempts to explore the paradoxical relationship between stability and change, especially their interdependence. Multiple approaches were used during data collection to meet the criteria for trustworthiness, and the data analysis went through a five-step process. Through this analysis, the main mechanisms of stability and change were identified. An analysis was also conducted on how these stable and variable mechanisms enable each other, and finally, a framework was set up to show this paradoxical relationship.

The results confirm the paradox of stability and change: stability enables change by supplying security and consistency, offering reserved knowledge and skills and enabling commitment and the provision of resources for a better realization of the change. Change enables a firm to set up a new state of stability through variable mechanisms such as trial-and-error and exploration activities. The results also indicate that the nature of organizational change is to help an organization reach a new stable stage with higher efficiency and that organizational development relies on the paradoxical effects of both stability and change.

This research is constrained by several limitations. The findings need to be further confirmed through the investigation of more organizations; other stable mechanisms, such as habits, tight coupling, commitments, control and low variance, and variable mechanisms, such as search, mindfulness, redundancy and openness, should be considered. As an organization may experience many cross-level or cross-department changes which struggle with each other for resources and with stable mechanisms, to explore the paradox, future research may need to conduct a more in-depth examination of the system of change.

The findings offer some valuable insights for further research and hold important implications for management practices, especially management practices in a Chinese context. The findings extend the existing paradox theory by further revealing how stability and change enable each other and offer a paradoxical perspective to look into the nature of organizational change and organizational development. The results remind managers to rethink the relationship between stability and change, to factor these coexisting concepts into their decision-making and to accept, understand and use this paradoxical relationship to realize synergistic effects for the firm.

Drawing on paradox theory and the category of the “performing-organizing” paradox, the study investigates the tensions firms experience in the context of organizing the processes involved in managing their indirect GHG emissions.

The authors develop hypotheses to explain why the paradox elements of supply chain transparency and supply chain coordination affect firms' ability to reduce their indirect supply chains GHG emissions. Using a two-stage method based on data from Refinitiv and CDP for 2002 to 2021, the authors test this study’s hypotheses through panel regression analyses.

While greater transparency experience with scope 3 emissions disclosure, GSCM practices and broader supply chain engagement are all associated with higher levels of scope 3 emissions levels, both long-term transparency experience and GSCM practices are also associated with relative reductions in scope 3 emissions over time.

Given growing pressures on firms to demonstrate both transparency and legitimacy regarding their scope 3 emissions, firms must understand the characteristics of this paradox as this has implications for how emissions performance is perceived and managed. This study's results suggested that firms need to take both a long-term perspective and effectively communicate the differences involved in reporting their emissions performance to avoid unwarranted criticism.

Filling a gap in sustainable OSCM studies by providing large-scale quantitative insights into the relationships between organizing and performing, the authors demonstrate that the processes involved in firms' efforts of measuring and managing their indirect scope 3 emissions are paradoxically affected by whether performance outcomes are specified as annual absolute levels of scope 3 emissions, or relative changes over time.

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.