Search results

This article investigates different terms and concepts of paradox dimensions in Public Administration because these terms are often used interchangeably. The aim is to reveal the theoretically based macro-level concepts and establish a common ground for a shared dialogue about managing paradoxes in the field.

This article uses a complementary review approach. First, a systematic literature review is executed to identify the macro-level paradox concepts and to capture their theoretical common ground. Second, the problematizing literature review aims to reflect Public Administration literature with literature from outside the field, mainly from Organization Studies and General Management.

For the most part, the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration are used to illustrate the context or situation of another research topic, rather than as standalone theories to be conceptually or empirically explored. In 63 out of 589 articles, we found a theoretical definition of the mentioned macro-level paradox concept. This definition refers mainly to the sources of paradoxical situations and focuses less on the decisions and reactions thereto. Based on the review findings, an analytical model for the management of paradoxical situations in the public sector is provided and applied, followed by recommendations for further research.

This article aims to combine the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration with the insights of Paradox Theory and reveals that paradoxes could be a core topic in the field. Scholars in Public Administration could approach paradoxical situations from their own perspective while simultaneously strengthening the field’s identity by encouraging multiperspectivity.

This paper aims to critically examine traditional approaches to paradoxes and propose a new approach and perspective that views “chiasmic” organizing as a intertwining combination of structure and processes that facilitate the handling of multiple interrelations for processing paradoxes and harness their creative potential in organizations.

Employing a cross-disciplinary approach, a literature review and a critical lens, along with conceptual work (typology), are used to identify problems and deficiencies in existing research on paradoxes. Specifically, it draws on Merleau-Ponty's process-oriented phenomenology and post-Cartesian ontology to gain a comprehensive understanding of post-dualistic forms of chiasmic organizing and its relationship with paradoxical phenomena.

The process-oriented phenomenology and post-Cartesian ontology used in this article offer valuable insights and a critical approach to comprehend post-dualistic forms of chiasmic organizing in relation to paradoxes. This understanding can help in tapping into the energizing and creative potential of paradoxes. The paper also highlights the significance of the “in(ter)-between” as a reversible principle in chiasmic organizing and proposes some implications.

Limitations and implications of this study are identified and discussed.

The paper offers practical implications for organizations in processing paradoxes.

This paper contributes to the existing literature by providing a conceptual critique and proposing a novel understanding of chiasmic organizing as an intertwining structure and mediating processes by employing a process-oriented phenomenology and post-Cartesian ontology. It also offers innovative ways to approach paradoxes and tap into their creative potentials, which can bring about change in organizations.

This review study aims to explore the prevalent paradoxes in digital transformation (DTN) of business and provide insights on how businesses can effectively navigate them.

The study conducts a systematic literature review, utilizing findings from a bibliometric analysis. A sample of 229 articles published in top-tier journals, retrieved from the Scopus database, is reviewed to identify nine clusters representing different sectors and paradoxes in DTN.

The review identifies and summarizes studies addressing the paradoxes that arise during DTN in various sectors. Scholars have analyzed the growing need for digital innovations and the benefits they bring, but this study aggregates high-quality research to address the gap in understanding prevalent paradoxes.

This study provides valuable insights into the paradoxes of DTN and offers guidance to businesses on effectively managing these challenges. It contributes to the existing literature by consolidating and presenting key research findings in this domain.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the understanding of paradoxes, underlying tensions and potential management strategies when integrating digital technologies into existing lean-based production systems (LPSs), with the aim of achieving synergies and fostering the development of production systems.

This study adopts a collaborative management research (CMR) approach to identify patterns of organisational tensions and paradoxes and explore management strategies to overcome them. The data were collected through interviews and focus group interviews with experts on lean and/or digital technologies from the companies, from documents and from workshops with the in-case researchers.

The findings of this paper provide insights into the salient organisational paradoxes embraced in the integration of digital technologies in LPS by identifying different aspects of the performing, organising, learning and belonging paradoxes. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate the intricacies and relatedness between different paradoxes and their resolutions, and more specifically, how a resolution strategy adopted to manage one paradox might unintentionally generate new tensions. This, in turn, calls for either re-contextualising actions to counteract the drift or the adoption of new resolution strategies.

This paper adds perspective to operations management (OM) research through the use of paradox theory, and we (1) provide a fine-grained perspective on why integration sometimes “fails” and label the forces of internal drift as mechanisms of imbalances and (2) provide detailed insights into how different management and resolution strategies are adopted, especially by identifying re-contextualising actions as a key to rebalancing organisational paradoxes in favour of the integration of digital technologies in LPSs.

This study explores the potential of paradox theory as a novel theoretical lens to investigate persistent and interdependent tensions in supply chains. It is based on a critical literature review focusing on paradoxes observed within complex supply chains in dynamic business environments, including the articles selected for this special issue, “Environmental Dynamism and Supply Chain Complexity: Managing the Paradoxes.”

This study introduces the key concepts and themes of the paradox theory literature and possible methodological approaches to studying paradoxes in supply chains. Through a literature review, this study also reflects on the current state of paradox research in the field of operations and supply chain management (OSCM) and proposes future research questions.

The application of paradox theory to OSCM research is in its early stages. This paper presents opportunities to explore persistent and interdependent tensions in supply chains using paradox theory.

The paper suggests several new research questions that should be translated into more precise propositions. The main implication for research is a call to focus attention on how and why a paradox perspective can help supply chain researchers view complex supply chain problems with fresh eyes.

The study provides the first critical review of paradoxical tensions in OSCM research. While the papers in this special issue contribute significantly to a better understanding of these issues, there is still significant potential for understanding how to respond to paradoxes in supply chains.

Exploring trust's impact on AI project success. Companies can't leverage AI without employee trust. While analytics features like speed and precision can build trust, they may also lower it during implementation, leading to paradoxes. This study identifies these paradoxes and proposes strategies to manage them.

This paper applies a grounded theory approach based on 35 interviews with senior managers, users, and implementers of analytics solutions of large European companies.

It identifies seven paradoxes, namely, knowledge substitution, task substitution, domain expert, time, error, reference, and experience paradoxes and provides some real-life examples of managing them.

The limitations of this paper include its focus on machine learning projects from the last two years, potentially overlooking longer-term trends. The study's micro-level perspective on implementation projects may limit broader insights, and the research primarily examines European contexts, potentially missing out on global perspectives. Additionally, the qualitative methodology used may limit the generalizability of findings. Finally, while the paper identifies trust paradoxes, it does not offer an exhaustive exploration of their dynamics or quantitative measurements of their strength.

Several tactics to tackle trust paradoxes in AI projects have been identified, including a change roadmap, data “load tests”, early expert involvement, model descriptions, piloting, plans for machine-human cooperation, learning time, and a backup system. Applying these can boost trust in AI, giving organizations an analytical edge.

The AI-driven digital transformation is inevitable; the only question is whether we will lead, participate, or fall behind. This paper explores how organizations can adapt to technological changes and how employees can leverage AI to enhance efficiency with minimal disruption.

This paper offers a theoretical overview of trust in analytics and analyses over 30 interviews from real-life analytics projects, contributing to a field typically dominated by statistical or anecdotal evidence. It provides practical insights with scientific rigour derived from the interviews and the author's nearly decade-long consulting career.

Although the place stakeholders play a key role in participatory place branding, surprisingly little interest has been shown in the people involved in participatory place branding initiatives. The purpose of this study is to explore place stakeholders’ perceptions of the meaning and scope of place branding.

This paper is based on two cases of participatory place branding, and the research design is inspired by participatory action research. The empirical material comprises observations, qualitative questionnaires and interviews.

This study identifies and describes four paradoxes in place stakeholders’ perceptions of the meaning and scope of place branding, embracing the target group (internal vs external), the objective (explore vs exploit), the stakeholders’ role (active vs passive) and the main value of place branding initiatives (process vs outcome). Furthermore, in this study, the place stakeholders’ paradoxical perceptions of place branding meant that, during the participatory processes, the authors encountered and needed to manage various opinions and behaviours, for example, “critics”, “innovators” and “relators”.

This paper contributes with a new perspective on participatory place branding. By capturing place stakeholders’ perceptions and understanding of place branding, this paper develops our knowledge and understanding of the starting point of participatory processes.

Contradictory sustainability priorities and perspectives among supply chain actors in greening transportation can be challenging. Several of these contradictions can be described as paradoxes (i.e. interests that are logical in themselves, but become irrational when perceived together). The aim of this study is to increase the understanding of paradoxical tensions hampering the greening of transportation in transport buyer–supplier dyads.

A case study method targeting greening transportation in two transport buyer–supplier dyads was applied, followed by an analysis with a point-of-departure in paradox theory.

Tensions related to performing, belonging, learning and organizing paradoxes in greening transportation were identified. These tensions arise as a consequence of actions, perspectives and other tensions, within three identified loci in individual companies and in dyads.

By identifying examples of tensions through the lens of paradoxes in a particular setting, this study provides an increased understanding of why the transition toward green transportation goes slow, despite the high ambitions of involved actors. The suggested framework provides a novel contribution to the literature that further increases the understanding of tensions, by providing additional insights into where tensions arise and how actions, perspectives and tensions in one place of a locus spectrum can disseminate along that spectrum.

This study is original because it applies paradox theory and the four categories of performing, belonging, learning and organizing within the field of greening transportation, and in particular as a lens to study interactions between different actors.

This paper aims to discuss the work of non-executive directors (NEDs) as inherently paradoxical. Paradox refers to the presence of persistent contradictions between interdependent forces. Those persistent tensions are explored, and approaches are indicated to stimulate the adaptive use of paradoxes as forces of innovation and renewal.

This conceptual approach can be read as an invitation for corporate governance scholars to embrace the logic of paradox to expand the understanding of this topic. Paradox is not conceptualized as an alternative to dominant structural views, including board composition, but as a complementary conceptual perspective, a meta-theoretical lens to shed light on the tensions inherent to governance.

The authors propose that paradox theory offers a fresh conceptual lens to study the role of NEDs. This approach may help NEDs to turn tensions and paradoxes visible to develop a rich understanding of their work, as well as helping them navigate the complexities of organizing, a process rich in inherent paradoxicality.

Organizational paradox theory is a bourgeoning field of study, but the conceptual lens of paradox has still been underexplored in the study of corporate governance.

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.