Search results

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore different types of packaging paradoxes and the reasons for their existence in food supply chains.

The research uses a multiple case study approach with rich empirical data from seven leading companies in Swedish food supply chains. The research uses coding and a paradox theory lens to analyse packaging paradoxes, both within and between companies in a supply chain.

The paper provides a novel theoretical lens which uses comprehensive empirical data to identify and categorise four types of packaging paradoxes on two system levels in food supply chains. It presents detailed descriptions of, and underlying reasons for, the paradoxes. It also discusses strategies required to manage packaging paradoxes.

Future research should confirm and extend the findings in this study by incorporating data from companies in other countries. It should cover the importance of paradoxes, their impact on company performance and innovation, and how different paradoxes are related to each other. It should also investigate strategies to manage paradoxes further.

The findings should help companies acknowledge and identify management principles for packaging paradoxes in food supply chains.

It is the first study which systematically explores packaging paradoxes in food supply chains. The study offers a new approach to understand the complexity of packaging decisions in food supply chains. It contributes to the packaging logistics literature by extending theoretical knowledge about conflicts of interest related to packaging. The management discussion offers initial insights into management of packaging paradoxes and directions for future research.

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.

The purpose of the current study is to identify the nature, scope and locus of and to systematize, the conceptual contradictions existing in dynamic capabilities research.

This paper employs a content analysis literature review of 86 papers on dynamic capabilities published between 1997 and 2019, using two databases – EBSCO and Web of Science/Knowledge databases. To structure the review, Smith and Lewis's (2011) categorization of organizational tensions is adopted.

First, the findings of this study suggest that DCs not only are shaped by a tension between efficiency and flexibility but also are built upon a large number of contradictory aspects, represented by organizing, performing, belonging and learning paradoxes. Second, the analysis identifies defensive and active responses to these tensions, with the former prevailing in the dynamic capabilities view literature. Both kinds of responses may facilitate or hinder organizational change. Third, it was found that while the literature has focused predominantly on organizing and learning paradoxes, the linkage between these categories remains under-researched.

This study makes three contributions. First, it identifies the scope (i.e. number), locus (analytical level) and nature (paradox categories and sub-categories) of DC-related paradoxes and responses to paradoxical tensions. Second, it shows that the nature and locus of conceptual contradictions are more complex than conceptualized in prior studies, going beyond the contingency and ambidexterity argument of how to deal with DC-related paradoxes. Third, it seeks to extend Di Stefano et al.'s (2014) proposition of integrating paradoxical views on different DC-related aspects. The idea of “audio console” introduced in this study highlights the interrelation of paradoxes between the categories and across analytical levels.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how leaders furthered the development of a social enterprise in response to paradoxes. Data on leadership practices were collected through interviews and observations in an Italian Healthcare network over the organization’s first two years. The data indicate that leaders addressed paradoxes in developing several critical resources by using both top-down influence and bottom-up participation. Leaders used top-down practices to further organizational development along a known path when they could leverage technical expertise or a vision to address a source of tension. Bottom-up practices, on the other hand, permitted the discovery of new paths that had not been previously identified. Leaders leveraged such responses where tensions appeared intractable. Implications for managers and organizational development and change practitioners are discussed.

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.

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 purpose of this paper is to examine how national culture influences individuals’ subjective experience of tension when confronting paradoxical demands that arise during their day-to-day organizational experience. The paper further explores two types of paradoxical demands (task oriented and relational oriented) and two mediating mechanisms (tolerance for contradictions and harmony enhancement concerns) that exhibit contrary cultural effects.

Drawing from a sample of white-collar workers in China and the USA, the authors first inductively generated scenarios with task-oriented and relational-oriented paradoxical demands and then conducted three studies where participants rated the perceived tension from the scenarios. In Study 1, they examined cross-cultural differences in perceived tension and the mediating role of tolerance for contradictions. In Study 2, they primed Americans with proverbs that promoted tolerance for contradictions. In Study 3, they examined the indirect effects of harmony enhancement concerns in China in relational-oriented paradoxical demands.

The results found that for task-oriented paradoxical demands, Chinese participants were less likely than American participants to experience tension and the effects were mediated by a higher tolerance for contradictions. Americans exposed to proverbs that promoted tolerance for contradictions also experienced less tension. For relational-oriented paradoxical demands, on the other hand, the authors found no cross-cultural differences, as the indirect effects of a tolerance for contradictions were mitigated by negative indirect effects of greater harmony enhancement concerns.

This paper demonstrates that culture can influence the tension that individuals subjectively experience when they confront paradoxical conditions, suggesting that individuals learn implicitly how to cope with tensions associated with paradoxes from their broader cultural environment. However, the authors also found different cultural effects within different paradoxical conditions, suggesting that the knowledge that individuals acquire from their broader cultural environment is multifaceted.

In this study, the authors aim to address the following two research questions: (1) How do technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves in technological changes? (2) How do incumbent firms manage technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level organizational ambidexterity? To do so, the authors examine technology innovation in cloud computing, which has taken shape and brought about changes to the information technology industry. Specifically, the authors examine how a traditional software company, China Standard Software Co., Ltd. (CS2C), successfully navigated the technological transition to cloud computing from its existing operating systems business by managing innovation paradoxes through multi-level ambidexterity capabilities.

This study examines a single exploratory case and conducts an in-depth analysis of how technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves in technological changes and how incumbent firms manage technology innovation paradoxes through multi-level organizational ambidexterity. The data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously through three phases. In Phase 1, one of the authors who had worked at CS2C for many years enabled the authors to obtain access to the company. The data analysis during this phase provided the authors with the history and current situation of CS2C, enabling them to understand the external circumstances, such as particular historical period, and internal conditions, such as cultural and technological changes, that would be relevant throughout the course of their study. It also helped the authors identify organizational ambidexterity capability as the guiding theoretical concept for their research. In Phase 2, the authors engaged in site visits and conducted detailed interviews with employees working at CS2C. In Phase 3, most of the data analysis was conducted. When the interview data were not sufficient to support the theoretical analysis, additional data were collected via phone calls and emails, to assure data-theory-model alignment.

The authors’ findings show that technology innovation paradoxes manifest themselves as contradictory relationships and mutual support relationships between exploitative and exploratory innovation. In addition, the authors identify three integration mechanisms as key to multi-level organizational ambidexterity capabilities in managing technology innovation paradoxes in technological changes.

Three important theoretical implications can be drawn from our case analysis. First, this research contributes to the knowledge of innovation paradoxes during technological changes. Second, this research provides a model of multi-level organizational ambidexterity capability in technological changes. Third, this research proposes three integration mechanisms driven by three types of ambidexterity capability at different organizational levels.