The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations
Abstract
Hybrid organizations combine institutional logics in their efforts to generate innovative solutions to complex problems. They face unintended consequences of that institutional complexity, however, which may impede their efforts. Past scholars have emphasized conflicting external demands, and competing internal claims on organizational identity. Data from an in-depth field study of the public-private Cambridge Energy Alliance suggest another consequence: paradoxes of performing (Smith & Lewis, 2011) that generate ambiguity about whether certain organizational outcomes represent success or failure. This article develops a process model of navigating such paradoxes: in sensemaking about paradoxical outcomes, actors grapple with definition of success and can transform the organizational logic. The result can be oscillation among logics, or novel synthesis between them when outside perspectives enable a clearer view of the paradox. Hybrid organizations' capacity for innovation depends in part on the results of this change process.
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
Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory
Latour, B. (2005) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199256044.001.0001 · Cited by 16,778
Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes
Oliver, C. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 · Cited by 8,950
Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data
Langley, A. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248 · Cited by 7,008
Organizing and the process of sensemaking
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0133 · Cited by 6,943
The Design and Implementation of Cross‐Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x · Cited by 2,403
Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840609104803 · Cited by 1,821
Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies
O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2008) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.53.3.422 · Cited by 626
Cited by
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
Multiple 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
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
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0042 · Cited by 343
The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616655483 · Cited by 324
“The more recent dynamic perspective on paradox management postulates (Smith & Lewis, 2011) and provides empirical evidence (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Jay, 2013; Smith, 2014) that the differentiating and integrating strategies can be used together, in purposeful and cyclical alternation over time.”
InfluentialExploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2019) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127018805345 · Cited by 150
Business models for environmental sustainability: Contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives
De Giacomo, M. R., & Bleischwitz, R. (2020) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2576 · Cited by 71
Paradoxes and Dual Processes: A Review and Synthesis
Keller, J., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2019) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12200 · Cited by 66
Doing Relationship Work: A Theory of Change in Consumer–Brand Relationships
Alvarez, C., Brick, D. J., & Fournier, S. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucab022 · Cited by 39
Interdisciplinary organization as a basic academic unit?
Yang, L., Albats, E., & Etzkowitz, H. (2021) · Industry and Higher Education · doi:10.1177/0950422220956951 · Cited by 19
Moving off the Map: How Knowledge of Organizational Operations Empowers and Alienates
Huising, R. (2019) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2018.1277 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Jay, J.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2013-02
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 137-159
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W1993387804
- Cited by
- 1,296
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 72.55
- 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.
