The DOI matches its Crossref record; 171 of the 171 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 22 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Abstract
As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, contradictory demands intensify. To understand and explain such tensions, academics and practitioners are increasingly adopting a paradox lens. We review the paradox literature, categorizing types and highlighting fundamental debates. We then present a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, which depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability—peak performance in the present that enables success in the future. This review and the model provide the foundation of a theory of paradox.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
58 Own interpretation · 19 Not checked yet · 5 No basis given · 3 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even αs research adopting α paradox perspective has expanded dramatically, this review highlights the lack of conceptual and theoretical coherence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, α number of organizational fields refer to simultaneously attending to contradictory tensions without using the term paradox.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of these articles grew at an average rate of 10 percent per year.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within our sample we found 360 articles focused on organizational paradox.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Complexity and plurality drive belonging paradoxes, or tensions of identity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the same tensions can exist across each of these levels.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, contradictory demands intensify.”
- Also stated in: another passage · plain
“As environments become more global, fast paced, and competitive, and as internal organizational processes become more complex, such contradictory demands become increasingly salient and persistent (Lewis, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewis, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: another passage · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By defining how they are going to operate, they define how they are not going to operate. Doing so creates organizing tensions, such as loosely coupled versus tightly coupled, centralized versus decentralized, and flexible versus controlling.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Responding to questions about who is going to do what highlights conflicting identities, roles, and values, creating belonging tensions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, paradoxical tensions may be nested, cascading across levels, as the experience at one level creates new challenges at another.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 35
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, even so, insights from α paradox perspective are limited by fundamental debates about the nature and management of paradoxical tensions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A second challenge in the literature stems from an ontological debate that differentiates paradoxical tensions either as an inherent feature of α system or as social constructions that emerge from actors' cognition and rhetoric.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that scholars have increasingly adopted α paradox perspective, with accumulating studies spanning organizational phenomenα and levels of analysis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Advocated responses to paradox diverge between acceptance and resolution strategies.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To be more specific, debates swirl around the conceptualization of paradox, the ontological nature of paradoxical tensions, and strategies to respond to these tensions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of conceptual clarity in this field is evident in the varying language adopted to describe tensions, including “paradox,” “dilemma,” dichotomy,” and “dialectic.””
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The four categories of paradox represent core activities and elements of organizations: learning (knowledge), belonging (identity/interpersonal relationships), organizing (processes), and performing (goals).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The system maintains equilibrium by adapting to α continuous pull in opposing directions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Dynamic equilibrium assumes constant motion across opposing forces.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although choosing among competing tensions might aid short-term performance, α paradox perspective argues that long-term sustainability requires continuous efforts to meet multiple, divergent demands (Cameron, 1986; Lewis, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cameron, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Lewis, 2000
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This ontological disparity fractures the literature and has implications for strategies to manage paradox through acceptance or resolution, another debate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this frequently used typology, the first strategy focuses on acceptance, whereas the last three seek to resolve the underlying tensions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Poole and Van de Ven, 1989
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Organizing paradoxes surface as complex systems create competing designs and processes to achieve α desired outcome.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Leaders' responses to these tensions mαy be α fundamental determinant of an organization's fate (Quinn, 1988).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Quinn, 1988
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Performing paradoxes stem from the plurality of stakeholders and result in competing strategies and goals.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Living with paradox implies that actors shift their expectations for rationality and linearity to accept paradoxes as persistent and unsolvable puzzles.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By defining what they are trying to do, the leaders define what they are not trying to do, highlighting goals and strategies and creating performing tensions, such as global versus local and socially focused versus financially focused.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tensions operate between as well as within these categories.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Others, however, stress that acceptance is α powerful, proactive strategy, reducing defensiveness to unleash enhanced performance (Cameron, 1986).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cameron, 1986
boosteddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers have explored paradoxical tensions as either inherent—existing within the system—or socially constructed—created by actors' cognition or rhetoric. We propose that they are both.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The metaphor of dynamic equilibrium highlights the model's key features—the persistence of conflicting forces and purposeful, cyclical responses over time that enable sustainability.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Dynamic equilibrium assumes constant motion across opposing forces.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, opposing yet interrelated dualities are embedded in the process of organizing and are brought into juxtaposition viα environmental conditions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Learning paradoxes surface as dynamic systems change, renew, and innovate.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although choosing among competing tensions might aid short-term performance, α paradox perspective argues that long-term sustainability requires continuous efforts to meet multiple, divergent demands (Cameron, 1986; Lewis, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cameron, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Lewis, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More specifically, α dynamic equilibrium enables sustainability through three mechanisms: (1) enabling learning and creativity, (2) fostering flexibility and resilience, and (3) unleashing human potential.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acceptance provides α comfort with tensions that enables more complex and challenging resolution strategies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet even as virtuous cycles can reinforce underlying tensions, achieving benefits from those tensions is not easy. The threat of vicious cycles persists, requiring managers to remain vigilant as they iterate between acceptance and paradoxical resolution strategies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Doing so involves consistent inconsistency as managers frequently and dynamically shift decisions. Actors therefore make choices in the short term while remaining acutely aware of accepting contradiction in the long term.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Paradox theory offers α frame to help neoinstitutional theorists explore the tensions of multiple logics (Kraatz & Block, 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kraatz & Block, 2008
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While actors construct organizations, doing so inherently surfaces material paradoxical tensions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, paradoxes reflect both inherent features of organizations and the agency that created and continues to reproduce those systems.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dynamic capabilities provide collective tools to enable organizational leaders to respond to environmental shifts and, in doing so, enable members to be more open and accepting of the dynamic environment of paradoxical tensions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taken together, plurality, change, and scarcity challenge our bounded rαtionality and stress systems. As α result, individuals are more prone to break apart interwoven elements into either/or decisions, practices, and understanding, blurring their interrelatedness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Individuals mαy also react by choosing one agenda, altering their beliefs or actions to enable α consistent response (Cialdini et αl., 1995) or maintaining an often mindless commitment to previous behaviors in order to enable consistency between the past and the future (Weick, 1993).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cialdini et al., 1995
- Not checked yetcites Weick, 1993
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By defining A we create α broad category of not A.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Providing α unifying platform can spur continued theoretical debate and guide future empirical research.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Without an integrating theory, studies attending to simultaneous opposites coexist across theoretical and phenomenological domains without interacting with one another.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Juxtaposing opposing forces may create the context for leaders to engage in creative problem solving, allowing their organizations to continuously improve.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Once rendered salient, paradoxical tensions spur responses. According to paradox studies, responses fuel reinforcing cycles that can be negative or positive (Lewis, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewis, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Paradox studies demonstrate the value of alternative tools, such as case studies (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), action research (Beech et al., 2004), systems αpproaches (Sterman, 2000), and agent-based models (Axelrod, 1997), for enabling more nuαnced insights.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Beech et al., 2004
- Not checked yetcites Sterman, 2000
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Paradox theory not only proposes that contradictory theories exist but offers α process for academics to start enriching and renewing our stock of organizational theories.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today, as globalization, innovation, hypercompetition, and social demands create more dynamic and intricate environments, paradox becomes α critical theoretical lens to understand and to lead contemporary organizations.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Globalization, innovation, hypercompetition, and social demands create more dynamic and intricate environments.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, α paradox theory offers opportunities for enriching organizational theorizing.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attending to paradox and building supportive capabilities enable orgαnizing to become α fluid, reflective, and sustainable process.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such α theory not only offers α response to organizational tensions but encourages active șearching for and surfacing of those tensions to enhance creativity and performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such α theory not only offers α response to organizational tensions but encourages active șearching for and surfacing of those tensions to enhance creativity and performance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Tensions forged through the act of organizing are not merely distinct from one another but are also oppositional and relational (Seo et al., 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seo et al., 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with contingency theory, α theory of parαdox provides α metatheoretical perspective that can provide guidance on how other theories ask questions and explore insights.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Without an integrating theory, studies attending to simultaneous opposites coexist across theoretical and phenomenological domains without interacting with one another.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Paradox theory not only proposes that contradictory theories exist but offers α process for academics to start enriching and renewing our stock of organizational theories.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A dynamic equilibrium creates α virtuous cycle.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dynamic equilibrium model proposes α managerial approach to paradox involving complementary and interwoven strategies of acceptance and resolution.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, as leaders consider the time horizon for their actions, they face learning tensions between today and tomorrow or between looking forward and looking backward.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Dynamic equilibrium assumes constant motion across opposing forces.
“Dynamic equilibrium, in contrast, assumes constant motion across opposing forces.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Tensions persist within complex and dynamic systems.
“But in contrast to contingency theory, α paradox perspective assumes that tensions persist within complex and dynamic systems.”
“At its core α paradox theory presumes that tensions are integral to complex systems and that sustainability depends on attending to contradictory yet interwoven demands simultaneously.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Sustainability depends on attending to contradictory yet interwoven demands simultaneously.
“At its core α paradox theory presumes that tensions are integral to complex systems and that sustainability depends on attending to contradictory yet interwoven demands simultaneously.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Globalization, innovation, hypercompetition, and social demands create more dynamic and intricate environments.
“Today, as globalization, innovation, hypercompetition, and social demands create more dynamic and intricate environments, paradox becomes α critical theoretical lens to understand and to lead contemporary organizations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Without an integrating theory, studies attending to simultaneous opposites coexist across theoretical and phenomenological domains without interacting with one another.
“Minus an integrating theory, studies attending to simultaneous opposites coexist across theoretical and phenomenological domains without interacting with one another.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Research on hybrid identities, multiple logics, ambidexterity, and work/family integration all draw from a similar assumption about the simultaneous coexistence of competing alternatives.
“Research on hybrid identities, multiple logics, ambidexterity, and work/family integration all draw from α similar assumption about the simultaneous coexistence of competing alternatives and yet could more effectively inform one another about the management of tensions.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While such a transition relaxes the tension temporarily, the issue resurfaces when conditions change over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Paradox theory, however, warns that such a narrow trade-off perspective does not adequately represent reality (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While such differentiation allows for engaging in both automation and augmentation, integration enables the finding of linkages that transcend the two poles (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While acceptance lays the groundwork for virtuous cycles, it has to be complemented with a subsequent resolution strategy (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Paradox theory suggests that managing tensions through the dynamic strategies of acceptance and resolution fosters sustainability (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“According to paradox theory, these organizational responses fuel reinforcing cycles that can be either negative or positive (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Organizations facing such a salient tension tend to apply management strategies to address it.”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A first step toward enabling such a virtuous cycle is the acceptance of the tensions as paradoxical (Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Tensions' systemic nature is a central tenet of paradox theorizing (Jarzabkowski, Bednarek, Chalkias, & Cacciatori, 2019;Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
From Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2021) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“paradoxes arise when two opposing elements are fundamentally linked to each other and coexist”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Smith and Lewis 2011
In the citing paper
“Much is known about existing paradoxes but not about their origin and inception; hence, we ask: how do entrepreneurial paradoxes emerge -in this case from the combination of work and play - and how are they navigated over time?”
From From a Hobby to a Business: Drifting through Paradox While the Business Accelerates (2024) · cites this paper as Smith & Lewis, 2011
In the citing paper
“Paradoxical thinking requires a firm to have the cultures, structures, and processes to seek and integrate conflicting information (Smith and Lewis 2011).”
From Stakeholder marketing: theoretical foundations and required capabilities (2015) · cites this paper as Smith and Lewis 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Clegg proposed that paradoxes and dialectics become synonymous when "α thesis does not exist despite its antithesis, but because of it. Each pole of the dialectic needs the other to sustain its presence" (2002: 29).”
“Clegg, S. R. 2002. General introduction. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Management and organization paradoxes: 1–10.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Foundational research | Fayol (1911), Taylor (1911)”
“Fayol, H. 1990. General principles of manαgement.”
Citations
Cites
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 46,726
Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393553 · Cited by 35,728
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. (1957) · doi:10.1515/9781503620766 · Cited by 24,241
(2010) · Cited by 24,023
Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.98.2.224 · Cited by 21,995
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning organization
Senge, P. M. (1991) · Performance + Instruction · doi:10.1002/pfi.4170300510 · Cited by 20,060
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Morvan, C., & O’Connor, A. (2017) · Macat Library eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781912282432 · Cited by 18,284
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- Ashcraft K. L., 2009, Academy of Management Annals, 3, 1, 10.1080/19416520903047186 · DOI · Paper page
- Badaracco J. L., 1998, Harvard Business Review, 76, 114
- Bartunek J., 1988, Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, 137
- Cameron K., 1988, Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, 1
- Deutsch M., 1968, Group dynamics, 461
- Donaldson T., 1995, Academy of Management Review, 20, 65, 10.5465/amr.1995.9503271992 · DOI · Paper page
- Eisenhardt K. M., 1988, Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, 19
- Eisenstat R. A., 2008, Harvard Business Review, 86, 50
- Farjoun M., 2002, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 848, 10.2307/3069318 · DOI
- Ford J., 1988, Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, 81
- Fredrickson B. L., 2001, American Psychologist, 56, 218, 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 · DOI · Paper page
- Friedman M., 1970, New York Times Magazine, 13, 32
- Graham P.(Ed.). 1996. Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Hoffman A., Woody J. G.2008. Memo to the CEO: Climate change, what's your business strategy? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
- Huy Q. N., 2001, Academy of Management Review, 26, 601, 10.2307/3560244 · DOI
- Keller J., 2010, Organization Science: Articles in Advance
- Kirschenbaum D., 1984, Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 26
- Langer E.1989. Mindfulness. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
- Levitt T., 1958, Harvard Business Review, 36, 41
- Losada M. F., 2004, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 740
- Pache A.-C., 2010, Academy of Management Review, 35, 455
- Putnam L., 1986, Organization communications: Emerging perspectives, 151
- Rothenberg A.1979. The emerging goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Tripsas M., 2000, Strategic Management Journal, 18, 119, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<119::AID-SMJ921>3.3.CO;2-S · DOI
- Tushman M., 1985, Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171
- Voorhees B., 1986, General Systems Bulletin, 16, 58
- Weick K., 1999, Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 81
- Wenger E. C., 2000, Harvard Business Review, 78, 139
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025 · Cited by 2,580
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
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-citationBattilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. (2014) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0903 · Cited by 944
Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate Responsibility
Bansal, P., & Song, H.-C. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0095 · Cited by 1,042
Contemplating Mindfulness at Work: An Integrative Review
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., Baer, R. A., Brewer, J. A., & Lazar, S. W. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315617003 · Cited by 1,043
Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem
Miron‐Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0594 · Cited by 887
Self-citationAn inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0718 · Cited by 722
Aligning with new digital strategy: A dynamic capabilities approach
Yeow, A. Y. K., Soh, C., & Hansen, R. (2017) · The Journal of Strategic Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2017.09.001 · Cited by 714
Bowing before Dual Gods: How Structured Flexibility Sustains Organizational Hybridity
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. H.-P. (2017) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839217750826 · Cited by 714
Self-citationJarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K., & de Ven, A. H. V. (2013) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127013481016 · Cited by 711
Generating Theory by Abduction
Sætre, A. S., & de Ven, A. V. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0233 · Cited by 711
A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects
Hahn, T., FIGGE, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2017) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3587-2 · Cited by 697
Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886314522322 · Cited by 654
Self-citationAdopting a platform approach in servitization: Leveraging the value of digitalization
Cenamor, J., Sjödin, D., & Parida, V. (2017) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.033 · Cited by 577
Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability
Montiel, I., & Delgado‐Ceballos, J. (2014) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026614526413 · Cited by 691
From Longevity of Firms to Transgenerational Entrepreneurship of Families
Zellweger, T. M., Nason, R. S., & Nordqvist, M. (2011) · Family Business Review · doi:10.1177/0894486511423531 · Cited by 585
Embracing Tensions in Corporate Sustainability
der Byl, C. A. V., & Slawinski, N. (2015) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026615575047 · Cited by 617
Academics and Practitioners Are Alike and Unlike
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314529160 · Cited by 522
Volberda, H., Khanagha, S., Baden‐Fuller, C. W. F., Mihalache, O. R., & Birkinshaw, J. (2021) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102110 · Cited by 539
Signaling Theory: State of the Theory and Its Future
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Reutzel, C. R., DesJardine, M. R., & Zhou, Y. S. (2024) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063241268459 · Cited by 566
A review of the effectiveness of empowering leadership
Cheong, M., Yammarino, F. J., Dionne, S. D., Spain, S. M., & Tsai, C. (2018) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.005 · Cited by 418
Govindan, K., Shaw, M., & Majumdar, A. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123075 · Cited by 410
Leader narcissism and follower outcomes: the counterbalancing effect of leader humility.
Owens, B. P., Wallace, A. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0038698 · Cited by 407
Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839214537811 · Cited by 440
Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agility
Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014) · California Management Review · doi:10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.58 · Cited by 401
Self-citationManaging the Tradition and Innovation Paradox in Family Firms: A Family Imprinting Perspective
Erdogan, I., Rondi, E., & Massis, A. D. (2019) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258719839712 · Cited by 391
Toward a Theory of Sustainability Management
Starik, M., & Kanashiro, P. (2013) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026612474958 · Cited by 372
Rothman, N. B., Pratt, M. G., Rees, L. L., & Vogus, T. J. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2014.0066 · Cited by 393
Do Humble CEOs Matter? An Examination of CEO Humility and Firm Outcomes
Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2015) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315604187 · Cited by 357
Scherer, A. G., & Voegtlin, C. (2018) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2017.0175 · Cited by 387
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0042 · Cited by 343
Paradox theory and the paradox of success
Cunha, M. P. E., & Putnam, L. L. (2017) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127017739536 · Cited by 362
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
“…different languages of thought, but at the same time are both needed for effective strategic decision making, generates a paradox (Lewis, 2000) – a duality involving “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382).”
InfluentialThe Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Langley, A. (2017) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.001.0001 · Cited by 313
Self-citationCompetitive Advantage Through Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Theory of Situated AI
Kemp, A. (2023) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0205 · Cited by 339
The competition–cooperation paradox in inter-firm relationships: A conceptual framework
Gnyawalị, D. R., Madhavan, R., He, J., & Bengtsson, M. E. (2015) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.014 · Cited by 310
Time in Strategic Change Research
Kunisch, S., Bartunek, J. M., Mueller, J., & Huy, Q. N. (2017) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0133 · Cited by 325
The coopetition paradox and tension: The moderating role of coopetition capability
Bengtsson, M. E., Raza‐Ullah, T., & Vanyushyn, V. (2015) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.008 · Cited by 299
Integrating Dialectical and Paradox Perspectives on Managing Contradictions in Organizations
Hargrave, T., & de Ven, A. H. V. (2017) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616640843 · Cited by 287
CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits
Zhang, H., Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Hui, W. (2017) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.003 · Cited by 307
Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands
Smith, W. K., & Tracey, P. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016638565 · Cited by 298
Self-citation“God at Work”: Engaging Central and Incompatible Institutional Logics through Elastic Hybridity
Gümüşay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0481 · Cited by 296
Laasch, O. (2017) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2017.09.002 · Cited by 310
A Review of Interorganizational Collaboration Dynamics
Majchrzak, A., Järvenpää, S. L., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314563399 · Cited by 265
Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research
Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12398 · Cited by 266
Stakeholder marketing: theoretical foundations and required capabilities
Hillebrand, B., Driessen, P. H., & Koll, O. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0424-y · Cited by 257
Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., & Carlson, J. (2015) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2013.0486 · Cited by 237
Toward a Process Theory of Making Sustainability Strategies Legitimate in Action
Hengst, I.-A., Jarzabkowski, P. A., Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.0960 · Cited by 233
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Järvenpää, S. L., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. (2017) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840617693560 · Cited by 260
Self-citationThe Dark Side of Organizational Paradoxes: The Dynamics of Disempowerment
Berti, M., & Simpson, A. V. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0208 · Cited by 257
CEO Attributes and Firm Performance: A Sequential Mediation Process Model
Liu, D., Fisher, G., & Chen, G. (2018) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2016.0031 · Cited by 241
Rosso, B. D. (2014) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840613517600 · Cited by 233
Knots in the Discourse of Innovation: Investigating Multiple Tensions in a Reacquired Spin-off
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2016) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616640845 · Cited by 254
When Is More Uncertainty Better? A Model of Uncertainty Regulation and Effectiveness
Griffin, M. A., & Grote, G. (2020) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0271 · Cited by 223
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Lê, J. K. (2016) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616640846 · Cited by 247
Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective
Carmine, S., & Marchi, V. D. (2022) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05112-2 · Cited by 256
The Ontology of Organizational Paradox: A Quantum Approach
Hahn, T., & Knight, E. R. W. (2019) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2018.0408 · Cited by 223
Service Research Priorities: Designing Sustainable Service Ecosystems
Field, J. M., Fotheringham, D., Subramony, M., Gustafsson, A., Ostrom, A. L., Lemon, K. N., Huang, M.-H., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2021) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/10946705211031302 · Cited by 202
Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2017.1513 · Cited by 241
Integrating Emotions and Affect in Theories of Management
Ashkanasy, N. M., Humphrey, R. H., & Huy, Q. N. (2016) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2016.0474 · Cited by 213
Giudici, A., Reinmoeller, P., & Ravasi, D. (2017) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0573 · Cited by 195
Voléry, T., Mueller, S., & von Siemens, B. (2013) · International Small Business Journal Researching Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1177/0266242613484777 · Cited by 195
Feeling Mixed, Ambivalent, and in Flux: The Social Functions of Emotional Complexity for Leaders
Rothman, N. B., & Melwani, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0355 · Cited by 204
Zhang, M. J., Zhang, Y., & Law, K. S. (2021) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2017.1265 · Cited by 204
Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity
Raynard, M. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016634639 · Cited by 196
Becoming Salient: The TMT Leader’s Role in Shaping the Interpretive Context of Paradoxical Tensions
Knight, E. R. W., & Paroutis, S. (2016) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616640844 · Cited by 208
Organizational Ambidexterity Through the Lens of Paradox Theory
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2014) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886314553101 · Cited by 184
Learning to Be a Paradox-Savvy Leader
Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2015.0070 · Cited by 181
Paradoxes and Innovation in Family Firms: The Role of Paradoxical Thinking
Ingram, A., Lewis, M. W., Barton, S., & Gartner, W. B. (2014) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/etap.12113 · Cited by 176
Self-citationHRM institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable business organizations
Ren, S., & Jackson, S. E. (2020) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100691 · Cited by 175
Ambidexterity for Corporate Social Performance
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & FIGGE, F. (2015) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840615604506 · Cited by 189
Ozanne, L. K., Phipps, M., Weaver, T., Carrington, M., Luchs, M. G., Catlin, J. R., Gupta, S., Santos, N. J. C., Scott, K. A., & Williams, J. D. (2016) · Journal of Public Policy & Marketing · doi:10.1509/jppm.15.143 · Cited by 188
Complexity, uncertainty-reduction strategies, and project performance
Floricel, S., Michela, J. L., & Piperca, S. (2016) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.11.007 · Cited by 194
Yang, S., Kher, R., & Newbert, S. L. (2019) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.03.001 · Cited by 186
Thriving at Work: How a Paradox Mindset Influences Innovative Work Behavior
Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2019) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/0021886319888267 · Cited by 198
Leveraging age diversity for organizational performance: An intellectual capital perspective.
Li, Y., Gong, Y., Burmeister, A., Wang, M., Alterman, V., Alonso, A., & Robinson, S. (2020) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000497 · Cited by 187
The role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: Contemporary challenges and contradictions
Podgorodnichenko, N., Edgar, F., & McAndrew, I. (2020) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.04.001 · Cited by 160
Coopetition as a Paradox: Integrative Approaches in a Multi-Company, Cross-Sector Partnership
Stadtler, L., & Wassenhove, L. N. V. (2016) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840615622066 · Cited by 170
McCluney, C. L., & Rabelo, V. C. (2018) · Journal of Vocational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.09.008 · Cited by 193
Reflections on the 2021 AMR Decade Award: Navigating Paradox Is Paradoxical
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2022) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2022.0251 · Cited by 175
Self-citationCulture, Conditions and Paradoxical Frames
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. (2017) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616685590 · Cited by 152
Navigating paradoxes: building a sustainable strategy for an integrated ESG corporate governance
Annesi, N., Battaglia, M., Ceglia, I., & Mercuri, F. (2024) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-10-2023-2006 · Cited by 209
Cleansing my abuse: A reparative response model of perpetrating abusive supervisor behavior
Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., Johnson, R. E., Liu, W., & Song, Z. (2018) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000319 · Cited by 151
Defining the Socially Responsible Leader: Revisiting Issues in Responsible Leadership
Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D. S., & Stahl, G. K. (2019) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/1548051819872201 · Cited by 160
Exploring 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
Social entrepreneurship: Creating value in the context of institutional complexity
Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., & Ray, S. (2017) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.056 · Cited by 145
Cameron, L. D. (2024) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392241236163 · Cited by 182
Revisiting Interorganizational Trust: Is More Always Better or Could More Be Worse?
Villena, V. H., Choi, T. Y., & Revilla, E. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316680031 · Cited by 146
A Configuration Model of Organizational Culture
Dauber, D., Fink, G., & Yolles, M. I. (2012) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244012441482 · Cited by 142
Being Where? Navigating the Involvement Paradox in Qualitative Research Accounts
Langley, A., & Klag, M. (2017) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428117741967 · Cited by 141
Open Innovation and Stakeholder Engagement
Gould, R. W. (2012) · Journal of technology management & innovation · doi:10.4067/s0718-27242012000300001 · Cited by 134
Transcendence through Rhetorical Practices: Responding to Paradox in the Science Sector
Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2016) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840616655486 · Cited by 142
The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case
Aoki, K., & Wilhelm, M. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1156 · Cited by 130
The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox
Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. (2018) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12397 · Cited by 131
Fourné, S. P. L., Rosenbusch, N., Heyden, M. L. M., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2019) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2019.04.002 · Cited by 145
In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions
Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726715625343 · Cited by 139
Toward a Meta-Theory of Creativity Forms: How Novelty and Usefulness Shape Creativity
Harvey, S., & Berry, J. W. (2023) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0110 · Cited by 125
Raza‐Ullah, T. (2018) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.003 · Cited by 139
Financial Markets and the Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy: Challenging the Dominant Logics
Louche, C., Busch, T., Crifo, P., & Marcus, A. A. (2019) · Organization & Environment · doi:10.1177/1086026619831516 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- Venue
- Academy of Management Review
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 381-403
- ISSN
- 0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3807
- OpenAlex
- W4231788326
- Cited by
- 1,631
- References
- 140
- Citations by year
- 2026: 242 · 2025: 316 · 2024: 184 · 2023: 163 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 127 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 33.50
- 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 › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Organizational Management and Leadership
- Keywords
- paradox, paradoxical tensions, dynamic equilibrium model, organizing, organizational sustainability, peak performance
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
