Search results

This chapter investigates the mutual relationship between logic and paradox, showing that paradox is indispensable to test logic, as well as logic is necessary to extend our understanding of paradox. Firstly, I consider the lesson that organizational theory can draw from formal logic’s investigation of semantic and set-theoretic paradoxes. Subsequently, I survey the plural interpretations of the concept of “logic” in organizational theory (as logic of theory, logic of practice, and institutional logics). I argue that this plurality of meanings is not a source of confusion but offers an opportunity to illustrate different manifestations of, and ways to cope with, organizational paradoxes.

The purpose of this article is to develop three approaches that managers should use to channel formerly negative stressors and anxieties into productively motivated behaviors. When managers deal more deftly with naturally arising and anxiety-inducing stress, they and their subordinates should perform more effectively simply because their levels of motivation will increase.

The conceptual discussion is grounded in ideas and principals adopted and/or adapted from ancient and contemporary Western and social scientific bodies of thought.

This deductive essay demonstrates how the conscious choice to manage through paradox as bad stressors arrive offers managers actual tools through which they could convert the threatening stresses into challenging – and motivating – anxieties.

Managers often seek to eliminate – or choose to consciously ignore – anxiety. Either behavior, of course, is unreasonable. The sense of realism that emerges from the paradoxical middle path introduced above should decrease the onset of such unreasonable responses to stress. Meanwhile, managing through this middle path approach also elevates the likelihood that motivated managers establish proper goals, break problems and challenges into manageable chunks and address them. In the bargain, managers should become better able to convert bad stress into good.

Co‐operation and competition characterise the inter‐firm relationships in strategic alliances. This article proposes a paradox approach to studying co‐operation and competition. It explains the paradox perspective and provides an analytic framework for the paradox of co‐operation and competition. In the light of the paradoxical nature, it advocates a multi‐paradigm approach to co‐operative and competitive strategies, which combines strategic positioning, the resource‐based view and game theory. The article suggests that the multi‐paradigms can not only encompass the contradictions of the paradox from the different perspectives, but also emulate the individual ones and provide a holistic picture. The multi‐paradigm approach therefore establishes a better methodology basis than fragmented orthodox theories in exploring the contradictory, interactive and dynamic nature.

The purpose of this study was to use legitimacy theory to discuss three important aspects of sustainability accounting and reporting practices: the historical building of legitimacy for such practices, how organizations have adhered to them when building organizational legitimacy in a new legitimacy context (the Middle East and North Africa [MENA] region) and how sustainability professionals assess the legitimacy of them in this context.

The study applied an exploratory qualitative design and a paradigm-type approach to organizational discourse analysis. It used a document analysis and eight expert interviews as data sources.

The findings revealed that sustainability accounting and reporting face considerable challenges in the MENA region. Four discourses on organizational sustainability in the region were identified, namely, the normative/pragmatic, compliance, restrictive and performative discourses.

Awareness of the challenges and mechanics of sustainability accounting and reporting practices is important for managers, policymakers and consumers, who typically lack in-depth understanding of such practices and so would benefit from being better able to assess companies’ sustainability performance. The four identified discourses facilitate stakeholders’ understanding of sustainability practices in the MENA region.

The legitimacy of sustainability accounting and reporting has not previously been comprehensively investigated in non-Western contexts. This study discusses three important aspects of legitimacy: legitimacy of an object, legitimacy of a subject and legitimacy from an evaluator’s perspective. In doing so, it identifies the paradoxical nature of organizations’ attempts to comply with sustainability reporting practices.

In their articles on “Innovation in Organizations: A Multi-Level Perspective on Creativity,” Robert Sternberg, along with Jane Howell and Kathleen Boies, broach a critical question bearing on the nature of creativity in organizational settings. Why is creativity in organizations so difficult even though organizations say they want creativity? In the present chapter, we examine some likely sources of this paradox and the ways one might go about resolving this paradox. Subsequently, we discuss directions for future research.

This essay is a philosophical exploration of the concept of the interesting. It draws a line from philosophical aesthetics to the philosophy of pedagogy and argues that an awareness of the nature of the interesting – an awareness of what makes something interesting, aesthetically – can help improve the pedagogical impact of academic lectures. Specifically, the essay argues that something that strikes us as interesting is also something that engages us. Hence, that making lectures interesting will lead to student engagement and to an enhanced learning experience.

With regard to rhetorical composition, the present essay attempts to enact the aesthetical principles that it discusses. Thus, it will not abide by the standard rhetorical academic conventions. (It attempts to be interesting, after all.)

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the potentials offered by New Product Committees for the development of responsible innovation in the financial services industry; and to provide grounds for policy recommendations.

The paper takes the form of collective, interdisciplinary reflection and experience within the industry.

New Product Committees can serve a practical approach to responsible innovation in finance.

The paper fills a gap in the empirical consideration of New Product Committees in the financial services industry and proposes original directions for policy orientations within organizations and at a regulatory level.

In fact, this research seeks to understand, on the one hand, the nature of defensive reactions and, on the other hand, the strategies mobilised by actors to deal with paradoxes of identity.

The authors mobilise a qualitative methodology based on three contrasting longitudinal case studies, several sequences of non-participant observations, semi-structured interviews and secondary data.

The results show, on the one hand, close professional identities despite different organisations and, on the other hand, different reactions and strategies for managing paradoxes of identity despite the proximity of professional identities.

Beyond the singularity of the paradoxes of identity studied, the research invites the authors to develop spaces for discussion.

Taking issue with the predominance of reviews of James March’s writings that focus on his technical contributions to organizational studies, this study aims to emphasize the central significance and contemporary relevance of his critical reflections on the meaning of life and work in modern organizations.

The paper uses a novel framework illustrated by extensive original quotations for capturing and making more accessible March’s profound contribution to organization studies. His work on organizational behaviour and decision-making is viewed as identifying and grappling with three key paradoxes of modernity: of rationality, performance and meaning. His prescriptions on how to handle and address these paradoxes are explored through a focus on his reflections on the poetry of leadership.

Whilst March himself emphasized that not all of his insights can be captured in an article level overview, March, his collaborator Olsen and others who worked with and studied under him have confirmed the accuracy of the review and the value of the enterprise.

Capturing March’s advocacy of sensible foolishness and playful seriousness in the face of ambiguity, uncertainty and contestation hopefully contribute to enhancing practitioners’ “lightness of being” in coping with and finding meaning in challenging environments.

Through the range of ideas covered, the framework used and the extensive use of March’s own worlds, the study, hopefully, communicates the depth and richness of March’s humanitarian enterprise and the “playfully serious spirit” that he advocates and exemplifies – in a way that is often omitted from narrower, more technical and somewhat dry treatments of his work.