The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge
Open accessAbstract
In this article, we outline a methodological framework for studying the inter-organizational aspects of paradoxes and specify this in relation to grand challenges. Grand challenges are large-scale, complex, enduring problems that affect large populations, have a strong social component and appear intractable. Our methodological insights draw from our study of the insurance protection gap, a grand challenge that arises when economic losses from large-scale disaster significantly exceed the insured loss, leading to economic and social hardship for the affected communities. We provide insights into collecting data to uncover the paradoxical elements inherent in grand challenges and then propose three analytical techniques for studying inter-organizational paradoxes: zooming in and out, tracking problematization and tracking boundaries and boundary organizations. These techniques can be used to identify and follow how contradictions and interdependences emerge and dynamically persist within inter-organizational interactions and how these shape and are shaped by the unfolding dynamics of the grand challenge. Our techniques and associated research design help advance paradox theorizing by moving it to the inter-organizational and systemic level. This article also illustrates paradox as a powerful lens through which to further our understanding of grand challenges.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Tensions' systemic nature is a central tenet of paradox theorizing (Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019;Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Resource-Based Theory of Strategic Alliances
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)00037-9 · Cited by 2,876
Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide
Lewis, M. W. (2000) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707712 · Cited by 2,562
Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0406 · Cited by 2,195
Understanding and Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Management Research
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.4007 · Cited by 2,021
Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 · Cited by 1,631
Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840614563742 · Cited by 1,455
Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations
Jay, J. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0772 · Cited by 1,397
Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422 · Cited by 1,385
Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2008.31767217 · Cited by 1,342
Building Inclusive Markets in Rural Bangladesh: How Intermediaries Work Institutional Voids
Mair, J., Martí, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0627 · Cited by 1,207
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Comeau-Vallée M, 2017, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 197
- 10.1177/014920630002600105 · DOI
- Lê J, 2017, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 490
- Nicolini D, 2013, Practice Theory, Work and Organization
- Tracey P, 2017, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, 490
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0072 · Cited by 2,755
Tackling wicked problems in strategic management with systems thinking
Grewatsch, S., Kennedy, S., & Bansal, P. (2021) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/14761270211038635 · Cited by 277
Corporate Carbon and Financial Performance Revisited
Busch, T., Bassen, A., Lewandowski, S., & Sump, F. (2020) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026620935638 · Cited by 233
George, G., Fewer, T. J., Lazzarini, S. G., McGahan, A. M., & Puranam, P. (2023) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063221148992 · Cited by 175
Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement
Brammer, S. J., Branicki, L. J., Linnenluecke, M. K., & Smith, T. M. (2019) · Australian Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0312896219871337 · Cited by 122
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E.
- Affiliations
- City, University of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Jarzabkowski, Paula
- Venue
- Strategic Organization
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-10-16
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 120-132
- ISSN
- 1476-1270 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-315X
- OpenAlex
- W2896442049
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 11.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Strategic Organization (publishedVersion)
- BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (acceptedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Education › Chaos, Complexity, and Education
- Keywords
- societal challenges, paradox theory, disaster insurance, boundary organizations, problematization, inter-organizational interaction, research design
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
