The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Engagement with one side of the tension may set the stage, or even create the conditions necessary, for the other's existence; in addition, over time there is often a mutual influence between the opposing forces, with swings from one side to the other (Poole & van de Ven, 1989).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Poole & van de Ven, 1989
In the citing paper
“Resolution involves seeking responses to paradoxical tensions through a combination of differentiation and integration practices (Poole & van de Ven, 1989).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Poole & van de Ven, 1989
Citations
Cites
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Glick, W. H. (1985) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4279045 · Cited by 1,286
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
What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044235 · Cited by 2,282
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
Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective
Geels, F. W. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 · Cited by 1,718
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1989-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 562
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1989354996
- Cited by
- 1,905
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 104 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 106 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 140 · 2020: 112 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 50
- FWCI
- 10.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academy of Management Review (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 › Management Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Management Research
- Keywords
- paradox, management theory, organizational theory, paradoxical thinking
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
