The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance
Abstract
Corporate governance is an increasingly provocative topic, evident in ongoing debates between proponents of control versus collaborative approaches. We accommodate these contrasting approaches within a paradox framework, using agency and stewardship theories to elaborate the underlying tensions and to emphasize the value of monitoring, as well as empowerment. Building from these tensions, we examine reinforcing cycles that foster strategic persistence and organizational decline. We conclude by discussing means of managing control and collaboration, highlighting the implications for corporate governance.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4279003 · Cited by 13,338
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9605060217 · Cited by 3,413
Managerial control of voting rights
Stulz, R. (1988) · Journal of Financial Economics · doi:10.1016/0304-405x(88)90039-6 · Cited by 2,429
Knee-deep in the big muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action
Staw, B. M. (1976) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90005-2 · Cited by 2,061 · cited 3×
“making, defenses in a low-performance context serve a "face-saving" purpose (Staw, 1976).”
BackgroundPrice, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms
Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.000525 · Cited by 1,990
Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories
Poole, M. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308389 · Cited by 1,905
Piderit, S. K. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707722 · Cited by 1,873
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
Self-citationParadox 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-citationBoard Composition Beyond Independence: Social Capital, Human Capital, and Demographics
Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206312463938 · Cited by 616
Westphal, J. D., & Bednar, M. K. (2005) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.262 · Cited by 404
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
“Interacting with the source of tension and bonding with actors more open to intuitive thinking can reduce actors’ anxiety about intuitive decision making and establish a lasting state of emotional calm and confidence in paradoxical thinking (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M.
- Venue
- The Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2003-07-01
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 397
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2053514464
- Cited by
- 1,112
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 64.65
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/30040729
- The paper
- Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance. The Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040729
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.
