Search results

Innovation ambidexterity is crucial for fostering growth and gaining a competitive advantage in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Previous research indicates that achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation is a multifaceted phenomenon occurring across various levels. This paper aims to examine the influence of individual, organizational and institutional factors on the ambidextrous innovation of Chinese niche leaders using a configurational perspective.

This study uses secondary data collected from 69 Chinese niche leaders in the new equipment manufacturing industry. The authors use fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to investigate how owner openness, age, digitization, the formal institutional environment and the informal institutional environment jointly influence innovation ambidexterity.

By using fuzzy set analysis, this study categorizes combinations of interdependent factors that promote innovation ambidexterity. In particular, the authors pinpoint three configurations that foster high innovation ambidexterity and two configurations that lack such high levels of innovation ambidexterity. The analysis results suggest that innovation paradoxes in SMEs are linked to a nested system comprising leadership, organizational factors and the institutional environment.

This study elucidates the mechanism of innovation ambidexterity through a configurational perspective. This research proposes and validates a framework that enables SMEs to develop ambidextrous innovation capabilities, thereby integrating organizational ambidexterity theory and shedding light on the intricately complex nature of innovation ambidexterity.

Together with increasing ambiguity and frequency of changes, management becomes full of seemingly conflicting choices, i.e. paradoxes, coming up in the process of decision-making. Successful management of paradoxes, i.e. treating them as “both/and” constructs leads to innovative solutions and better overall organizational performance. In response to a significant research gap regarding antecedents of managing paradoxes, the aim of the paper is to investigate how individual characteristics of strategic decision-makers, specifically their age, tenure and educational background, affect the ability to combine contradictions in their strategic choices.

An empirical study was conducted among 201 managers representing furniture companies in Poland. The CATI technique with an interview questionnaire was adopted in order to identify respondents' opinions on the main features, traits and dimensions of the strategy implemented in their companies. Participants' tenure, age and education were measured by single items.

The study suggests that the ability to manage paradoxes increases with age and tenure in a company and at a current position. At the same time economic/business educational background appears to be unsupportive in this regard.

While the issue of managing paradoxes energizes researchers in various disciplines, we still do not know much about antecedents of the process. The study shed light on effects that managers' demographics have on their ability of managing paradoxes. It contributes to the theory on strategic paradoxes as well as theory on the influence of decision-makers' individual characteristics on their decisions.

This paper makes a case for the investigation of organizational paradoxes through the analysis of documents. After having presented what paradoxes are and the methodological challenges of studying them, the paper turns to document research, with emphasis on its potential contribution to paradox research. More specifically, document research typically provides ready-to-code data in a nonintrusive manner, allowing for the potential longitudinal, multilevel and multivoice analysis of organizational paradoxes and their management, in practice. To illustrate this, the purpose of this paper is to explore exemplar research based on multiple approaches to the study of different paradoxes in/around various documents and sets a research agenda.

Exemplar research on paradoxes using organizational documents as central data are presented. This highlights the range of documents and analytical strategies that can be used to explore organizations’ discursive management of paradoxes, as well as the roles documents can play in organizational contexts marked by different types of paradoxes.

A research agenda is developed, formulated around the needs to study paradoxes within documents and around them; grasp the discursive strategies deployed in documents to deal with paradoxes and/or the action of documents in contexts marked by paradoxes; follow the organizational processes involving documents, paying special attention to the paradoxes surrounding the development, adoption and appropriation of documents; and compare paradoxes in documents and those around the documents’ mobilization.

Despite growing interest in organizational paradoxes, reflections on methodological approaches to exploring them remain scarce and alternative methods largely unexplored. This paper makes the following proposition: organizational documents (strategic plans, annual reports, policies, websites, etc.) can provide a valuable entry point to explore organizational paradoxes.

For a new technology-based firm, the ability to learn is crucial to their growth process. However, firms constantly face the challenge of maintaining the ambidexterity of two different learning activities, namely learning by exploiting existing competencies and learning through exploring new ones. The purpose of this study is to examine how small technology-based firms at incubators perform both activities. Using the index of network openness, we argue that firms perform ambidexterity by maintaining a balance between a high and low level of network openness. Our first hypothesis was constructed as firms pursuing explorative learning will develop a high level of network openness while those pursuing exploitative learning will develop a low level of network openness. In the second hypothesis, we argue that firms need to balance network openness. Developing too low level of network openness will not add more benefits as the cost for maintaining relationship increases. Similarly, developing too high level of openness may potentially hinder firms’ progress as firms face distractions and difficulties in maintaining a wide variety of relationships. Using the empirical data from new technology-based firms located at the Daresbury SIC, we confirm the hypotheses. The result also found a trend of a curvilinear relationship between network openness and the firms’ performance which confirm the second hypothesis. The overall findings have illustrated how a network has a positive impact on helping small and new technology-based firms perform learning ambidexterity.

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 chapter introduces two core notions from Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory to paradox studies. Specifically, it offers the notions of decision paradox and deparadoxization as potential generative theoretical devices for paradox scholars. Drawing on these devices, the paper shifts focus to the everyday and mundane nature of decision paradox and the important role of deparadoxization (i.e., generating latency) in working through paradox. This contribution comes at a critical juncture for paradox scholarship, which has begun to converge around core theories, by opening up additional and possibly alternative theoretical pathways for understanding paradox. These ideas respond to recent calls in the literature to widen our theoretical repertoire and align scholarship more closely with the rich, pluralistic traditions of paradox studies.

Creativity is a strongly context related, collective and collaborative task across multiple boundaries that are of immaterial and material nature. Numerous factors play a role in the emergence of creativity. Leadership styles and diversity have undoubtedly an impact on team creativity. Creative teams face many processes inherent paradoxes which leaders and members need to balance and overcome together. According to the observations and research findings discussed in this chapter, effective management of diversity for creativity requires a ‘humble leadership’ style as well as different communication competencies and strategies. This book chapter provides theoretical and practical insights for those responsible for diversity management in creative teams, based on two empirical studies conducted between 2019 and 2022. Competencies and strategies are presented that may help leaders and teams navigate through highly dynamic, paradoxical interaction processes and, thus, turn their diversity into a creativity asset. In addition, a glimpse of the Team Creativity Navigator (TCN) is offered, which is a new assessment and development tool that supports leaders’ and team members’ learning processes for inclusive, creativity enhancing collaboration. As such, our chapter is an empirically based conceptual contribution with the objective of providing practitioners (and researchers) with insights into appropriate strategies to boost creativity in diverse teams.

Although ecosystems have been researched extensively over the past decade, we know little about how they should be organised. Focusing on a knowledge ecosystem comprising a university and a regional strategic network (RSN), this paper aims to describe and discuss the mechanisms for knowledge development in knowledge ecosystems.

This paper studies the integration of a university into a Swedish RSN. Data were collected through interviews with representatives of the university, the RSN and all firms comprising the RSN. A qualitative content analysis helped to detect mechanisms for knowledge development.

Two reinforcing mechanisms for knowledge development in the knowledge ecosystem are identified: structure and openness, which relate to insight and outlook, respectively. The findings also indicate a knowledge division, with the university representing the transfer of knowledge capabilities as a linear process, whereas the content-related knowledge is collaborative.

This paper contributes to research on knowledge ecosystems by describing how their organisation is based on a number of contradictions (structure and openness, insight and outlook, linearity and collaboration) to accomplish the development of knowledge capabilities and content-related knowledge.

This chapter engages with both religion and paradox in leadership and organization research by focusing on three sources of paradoxical tensions and how they are shaped by religion: worldly limits, diverse interpretations, and emerging relationships. First, regarding worldly limits, religion is predicated on an additional “very macro” level of reality, transcendence. This belief offers a distinct way of engaging with paradoxes as it extends the worldly realm’s boundaries. Second, contradictory interpretations of religions may rise, even among members of the same faith, leading to new cognitive paradoxes. Dynamizing boundaries between contradictory elements may allow organizations to maintain unity in a diversity of interpretations. Third, concerning emerging relationships, religions are global phenomena that are experienced side by side in multiple societal terrains. They cut across diverse social systems and give rise to novel relationships. This creates new tensions and paradoxical encounters, as religions traverse borders and boundaries and encounter existing social beliefs, structures, and practices. The expansion, dynamization, and shifting of boundaries then shapes persistent contradictions among interdependent elements. Our field should appreciate and embrace conflicting mysteries and paradoxes across boundaries. We may only need some faith.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how paradox has become a common label for the organizational complexity, ambiguity and equivocality accentuated by change.

As a label, paradox is socially constructed – the product of actors' daily discourses. Applying a constructivist lens and insights from systems theories, the paper explores the nature and dynamics of paradox related to changing organizations. Building from related studies, the paper proposes a framework that details recurring paradoxes, their communicative sources, and their paradoxical interplay. This action research study of the Lego Company provides an integrative example.

Most organizational phenomena that one makes the subject of study are brought out through our own social interactions. Processes and product are two sides of the same coin. Exploring paradoxes often creates circles of reflection. An understanding of paradox does not solve problems, but rather opens new possibilities and sparks circles of even greater complexity.

The paper provides a critique of “resolution”, identifying responses to paradox that may energize change.