The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational Identities
Abstract
A strongly identified workforce presents a paradox during times of radical organizational change. Though it may bind people together behind the change initiative, strong organizationwide identification often blinds and potentially blocks the view of new possibilities. Prior research on identity change has tended to either ignore the paradox or resolve it by advocating some middle ground such as hybrid organizational identities or group-level identifications. This paper presents an identity transformation model that capitalizes on the paradoxical tensions over time by unpacking the processes by which individual and organizational levels of identity interact. It operationalizes the model by suggesting linguistic markers that describe the different stages of the process and rhetorical techniques that leaders can use to guide people through the process. To illustrate the model and its application, the paper highlights moments across a 10-year period at Tech-Co, a high-technology company undergoing a significant identity transformation.
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.
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
Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009 · Cited by 6,477
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.9.954 · Cited by 5,806
Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.4.3.367 · Cited by 1,545
Paradoxical Thinking and Change in the Frames of Reference
Westenholz, A. (1993) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069301400104 · Cited by 175
Cited by
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
Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms
Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x · Cited by 1,399
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
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of Conversations and Collective Identity
Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. B., & Grant, D. (2005) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281426 · Cited by 698
Metadata
- Authors
- Fiol, C. M.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 653-666
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2022919863
- Cited by
- 505
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 21.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.