CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175Management and Organizational StudiesOrganizational Change and LeadershipOrganizational Management and Change

Paradoxical Thinking and Change in the Frames of Reference

Westenholz, Ann·1993·Organization Studies
DOI 10.1177/017084069301400104
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Different types of mental frames of reference among employees in a producers' cooperative are described. Characterizing the employee this way produces a pic ture of the way in which each employee processes information that, in a given situation, enables him or her to identify probiems and solutions. These different frames of reference are assumed to have an impact on the actions taken by these individuals. Furthermore, such actions are assumed to be connected with actions in the organization. Some of the employees occasionally display unexpected beha viour that cannot be explained by the way they have previously interpreted their situation. They experience a paradoxical situation in the organization, during which previous frames of references (or parts of them) are 'deframed' and devoid of meaning, because they hecome involved in discussions on a different, unknown level. Some of these employees discover that the new categories are socially constructed, enabling them to pursue new ways of understanding the environ ment, and to act accordingly. This paper describes situations in which this process is likely to take place and how it may or may not facilitate organizational change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/017084069301400104

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Traditional marketing ignores or suppresses tension and focuses on customer issues as the single most important criterion for solving problems.

    “Traditional marketing draws on this line of reasoning by ignoring or suppressing tension and focusing on customer issues as the single most important criterion for solving problems.”

    From Stakeholder marketing: theoretical foundations and required capabilities (2015) · cites this paper as Westenholz 1993

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 6 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Westenholz, A.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Westenholz, Ann
Venue
Organization Studies
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1993-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
37-58
ISSN
  • 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3044
DOI
10.1177/017084069301400104
OpenAlex
W2159415906
Cited by
175
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Organization Studies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
Keywords
paradoxical thinking, organizational change, employee behavior, social construction of categories, information processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review