The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide
Abstract
“Paradox” appears increasingly in organization studies, often to describe conflicting demands, opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings. This article helps researchers move beyond labeling—to explore paradoxes and contribute insights more in tune with organizational complexity and ambiguity. I first develop a framework that clarifies the nature of paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles, and their management. Using this framework, I then review studies in which paradoxes spurred by change and plurality are investigated. I conclude by outlining strategies for identifying and representing paradox, addressing implications for research.
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
Paradoxical Thinking and Change in the Frames of Reference
Westenholz, A. (1993) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069301400104 · Cited by 175
Cited by
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
Self-citationToward 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
Self-citationMultiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0431 · Cited by 1,571
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, M. W.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 760
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2084612155
- Cited by
- 2,555
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 20.69
- 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.
