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
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.218 · Cited by 18,025
The psychology of interpersonal relations
Heider, F. (1958) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089062 · Cited by 17,189
The psychology of interpersonal relations.
Heider, F. (1958) · doi:10.1037/10628-000 · Cited by 13,457
The Social Psychology of Organizations.
Hackman, J. R., Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2989929 · Cited by 12,243
The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits
Friedman, M. (2007) · Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_14 · Cited by 11,529
Positive psychology: An introduction.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 · Cited by 11,351
Research in Organizational Behavior.
Grimes, A. J., Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392975 · Cited by 11,303
(1969) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 10,735
(2000) · University of Maribor digital library (University of Maribor) · Cited by 9,354
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393549 · Cited by 8,563
Mindset: The New Psychology of Success
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-2397 · Cited by 7,804
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1994) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198288787.001.0001 · Cited by 7,371
Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780 · Cited by 6,963
From the New York Times Magazine
Minsky, & Hyman, P. (1979) · Cited by 6,899
A Behavioral Theory of the FirmPreprint
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 6,490
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
The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258887 · Cited by 5,846
Proceedings of the American philosophical society
(1838) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/s0016-0032(38)92229-x · Cited by 5,568
Designing Complex Organizations
Galbraith, J. R. (1973) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,424
Carpenter, M. A., Cardon, M. S., McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781849807630.00018 · Cited by 5,213
Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556659 · Cited by 5,130
The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time
Brewer, M. B. (1991) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 · Cited by 5,107
Principles of Scientific Management, The
Xu, W., & Yu, J. (2015) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Economics and Society · doi:10.4135/9781452206905.n541 · Cited by 5,041
Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996) · Harvard business review · Cited by 5,015
The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster
Weick, K. E. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393339 · Cited by 5,000
Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165852 · Cited by 4,959
McGregor, D. (1985) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-054752-4.50008-7 · Cited by 4,861
The Architecture of Complexity
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0718-9_31 · Cited by 4,479
Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.
Hall, R. H., Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1968) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391270 · Cited by 4,325
Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory.
Udy, S. H., & Thompson, J. D. (1968) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2092248 · Cited by 4,130
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · cited 1×
“…of technological change today demands that firms simultaneously excel at both exploration and exploitation (Smith & Tushman, 2005), enabling stability and flexibility (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Rindova & Kotha, 2001) and building contexts for learning and performance (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994).”
BackgroundThe Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction
TEECE, D., & PISANO, G. (1994) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/3.3.537-a · Cited by 4,013
THE ANTECEDENTS, CONSEQUENCES, AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159573 · Cited by 3,951
Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391211 · Cited by 3,937
Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 · Cited by 3,737 · cited 1×
“Even as these strategies compete for resources in the short term, they are mutually reinforcing to enable long-term success (He & Wong, 2004).”
BackgroundStrategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise.
Erickson, C., & Chandler, A. D. (1963) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2550822 · Cited by 3,421
Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier
Wenger, É., & Snyder, W. M. (2006) · Knowledge management and organizational learning · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199291793.003.0017 · Cited by 3,337
The Interplay Between Exploration and Exploitation
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083026 · Cited by 3,239
KEEPING AN EYE ON THE MIRROR: IMAGE AND IDENTITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTATION.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256405 · Cited by 2,931
Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.57318391 · Cited by 2,929
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361 · Cited by 2,829
Positive organizational scholarship : foundations of a new discipline
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003) · Cited by 2,784
Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction
Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6 · Cited by 2,775
Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206308316058 · Cited by 2,739
Provisional Selves: Experimenting with Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation
Ibarra, H. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667055 · Cited by 2,702
Institutional Contradictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective
Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6588004 · Cited by 2,606
Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide
Lewis, M. W. (2000) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3707712 · Cited by 2,562
Self-citationAmbidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 · Cited by 2,431
Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0134 · Cited by 2,334
Self-citationThe Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration
Fukuyama, F., Axelrod, R., & Jervis, R. L. (1998) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20048800 · Cited by 2,206
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-citationLooking Forward and Looking Backward: Cognitive and Experiential Search
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. A. (2000) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666981 · Cited by 2,032
Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles
Rothbard, N. P. (2001) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094827 · Cited by 1,991
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
Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice
Woodward, J. (1966) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,892
Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities
Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.331 · Cited by 1,771
The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration
Axelrod, R. (1997) · doi:10.1515/9781400822300 · Cited by 1,759
Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.9.741 · Cited by 1,758
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. M. S. D. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.35.3.zok455 · Cited by 1,701
Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.43 · Cited by 1,592
The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration
Palm, R. I. (1986) · Political Geography Quarterly · doi:10.1016/0260-9827(86)90040-6 · Cited by 1,590
ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING AND MIDDLE MANAGER SENSEMAKING.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159600 · Cited by 1,518
Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity
Gilbert, C. G. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.18803920 · Cited by 1,375
Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism
Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781849200387.n10 · Cited by 1,371
Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2008.31767217 · Cited by 1,342
Self-citationThe social psychology of organizations
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966) · Cited by 1,184
Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President
Harrison, A. T., Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., et al. (1975) · AAUP Bulletin · doi:10.2307/40224872 · Cited by 1,170
Huy, Q. N. (2002) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094890 · Cited by 1,169
van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407918 · Cited by 1,167
Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2003) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2003.10196737 · Cited by 1,152
Self-citationClassifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791601 · Cited by 1,142
THE DYNAMICS OF COLLECTIVE LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGIC CHANGE IN PLURALISTIC ORGANIZATIONS.
Denis, J., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069417 · Cited by 996
Superman or the Fantastic Four? knowledge combination And experience in Innovative Teams
Taylor, A. H., & Greve, H. R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083029 · Cited by 989
Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness
Cameron, K. S. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.539 · Cited by 976
Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.6.5.524 · Cited by 956
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870 · Cited by 953
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840 · Cited by 946
CONTINUOUS "MORPHING": COMPETING THROUGH DYNAMIC CAPABILITIES, FORM, AND FUNCTION.
Rindova, V., & Kotha, S. B. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069400 · Cited by 932
Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence, and Radical Change
Huy, Q. N. (1999) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1999.1893939 · Cited by 926
Zilber, T. B. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069294 · Cited by 923
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094849 · Cited by 914
Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706 · Cited by 900
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2971 · Cited by 898
Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity
Auh, S., & Mengüç, B. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.11.007 · Cited by 867
The Architecture of Simplicity
Miller, D. (1993) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1993.3997509 · Cited by 861
Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical, and Deindividualized Leadership in Extreme Action Teams
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.51.4.590 · Cited by 780
Where is the “Me” Among the “We”? Identity Work and the Search for Optimal Balance
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798186 · Cited by 780
Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Coevolutionary Lock-in
Burgelman, R. A. (2002) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3094808 · Cited by 774
Using the Plural Form in the Management of Restaurant Chains
Bradach, J. L. (1997) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393921 · Cited by 743
McGrath, J. E. (1981) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/000276428102500205 · Cited by 738
1 Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication
Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T. R., & Cooren, F. (2009) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520903047186 · Cited by 731
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318 · Cited by 728
GOAL SETTING AS A MOTIVATOR OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. M. (2004) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/20159591 · Cited by 682
Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management
Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (2007) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250151007 · Cited by 643
The Dynamics of Intense Work Groups: A Study of British String Quartets
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393352 · Cited by 635
D'Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393512 · Cited by 613
Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames
Denis, J., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2007) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726707075288 · Cited by 612
Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic Paradoxes Simultaneously
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.003 · Cited by 607
Self-citationCo‐evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms: From Evolution to Co‐evolution
Volberda, H., & Lewin, A. Y. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00414.x · Cited by 597
Management team learning orientation and business unit performance.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.552 · Cited by 591
A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity
Bledow, R., Fresé, M., Anderson, N. R., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x · Cited by 591
Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise
Chandler, A. D. (1962) · Cited by 546
Managing public–private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design
van Marrewijk, A. H., Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M. B. (2007) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007 · Cited by 520
Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and management
(1989) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.26-3346 · Cited by 518
Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths
Treviño, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/ame.2004.13837400 · Cited by 506
Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming Organizational Identities
Fiol, C. M. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502 · Cited by 505
Management paradoxes: A relational view
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726702555001 · Cited by 498
The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart, J. E. (1993) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250141007 · Cited by 495
Time, Temporal Capability, and Planned Change
Huy, Q. N. (2001) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2001.5393897 · Cited by 490
Golden‐Biddle, K., & Rao, H. (1997) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.8.6.593 · Cited by 458
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069601700101 · Cited by 451
Business Dynamics—Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World
Swanson, J. (2002) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601336 · Cited by 442
Ilieș, R., Wilson, K. S., & Wagner, D. T. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.36461938 · Cited by 426
Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?
Gilbert, C. G. (2006) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0160 · Cited by 421
House, R. J., McGrath, J. E. P., Martin, J., & Kulka, R. A. (1984) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258245 · Cited by 410
Logics of Identity, Contradiction, and Attraction in Change
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1994.9412190218 · Cited by 401
Organizational designs and innovation streams
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2010) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtq040 · Cited by 363
Self-citationA firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm
Nonaka, I. (2002) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/11.5.995 · Cited by 345
Managing Intractable Identity Conflicts
Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. (2009) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.35713276 · Cited by 342
Shooting the Rapids: Managing Product Development in Turbulent Environments
Iansiti, M. (1995) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41165820 · Cited by 335
Contingency Theory: Some Suggested Directions
Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. W. (1984) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638401000103 · Cited by 324
Conceptual/integrative complexity
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511527937.028 · Cited by 318
Organizational paradox and transformation.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988) · Cited by 317
Adding Interpersonal Learning and Tacit Knowledge to March's Exploration-Exploitation Model
Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083027 · Cited by 312
Stretchwork: Managing the Career Progression Paradox in External Labor Markets
O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798174 · Cited by 306
Toxic Decision Processes: A Study of Emotion and Organizational Decision Making
Maitlis, S., & Özçelik, H. (2004) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0070 · Cited by 292
Technological Discontinuties, Organizational Capabilities, and Strategic Commitments
Rosenbloom, R. S., & Christensen, C. M. (1994) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/3.3.655 · Cited by 282
Logics of Identity, Contradiction, and Attraction in Change
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258744 · Cited by 279
Gruenfeld, L. W., Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393328 · Cited by 256
The International Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate
Cooper, C. L., Cartwright, S., Cartright, S., & Earley, P. C. (2001) · eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · Cited by 250
Organization Change and Development: A Systems View
Kilmann, R. H., & Beer, M. (1982) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257315 · Cited by 249
Spontaneous Humour as an Indicator of Paradox and Ambiguity in Organizations
Hatch, M. J., & Erhlich, S. B. (1993) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069301400403 · Cited by 241
Organizational Architecture: Designs for Changing Organizations
Nadler, D. A., Gerstein, M. S., & Shaw, R. B. (1992) · Cited by 235
Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations
Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726704048357 · Cited by 189
Trethewey, G. E. A., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2004) · Journal of Applied Communication Research · doi:10.1080/0090988042000210007 · Cited by 187
A General Contingency Theory of Management
Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. (1977) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1977.4409038 · Cited by 185
A Rhetoric-in-Context Approach to Building Commitment to Multiple Strategic Goals
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607075266 · Cited by 183
Dualities and Tensions of Planned Organizational Change
Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195135008.003.0004 · Cited by 170
Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice
Waldman, D. E., & Jensen, E. J. (1997) · Cited by 156
The effects of cooperation and competition upon group process
Deutsch, M. (1948) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 149
Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox.
Ford, J. D., & Backoff, R. W. (1988) · Cited by 147
The Dynamics of Standing Still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the Radial Revolution
Sull, D. N. (1999) · The Business History Review · doi:10.2307/3116183 · Cited by 143
Paradox of Coordination and Control
Gittell, J. H. (2000) · California Management Review · doi:10.2307/41166044 · Cited by 126
Farjoun, M. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/3069318 · Cited by 115
Extreme Toyota: Radical Contradictions That Drive Success at the World's Best Manufacturer
Osono, E., Shimizu, N., & Takeuchi, H. (2008) · Cited by 101
The Paradoxical Self: Toward an Understanding of Our Contradictory Nature
Schneider, K. J. (1998) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 101
Self-Regulation and Sport Psychology: Nurturing an Emerging Symbiosis
Kirschenbaum, D. S. (1984) · Journal of Sport Psychology · doi:10.1123/jsp.6.2.159 · Cited by 97
‘Doublethink’: The prevalence and function of contradiction in accounts of organizational life
El‐Sawad, A., Arnold, J., & Cohen, L. (2004) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726704047142 · Cited by 83
The discipline of building character.
Badaracco, J. L. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 76
Starke, A. M. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003309680-4 · Cited by 72
Management and Organization Paradoxes
(2002) · Advances in organization studies · doi:10.1075/aios.9 · Cited by 70
The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams
Losada, M. F., & Heaphy, E. D. (2009) · Cited by 66
Top management teams and corporate success in an emerging industry
Virany, B., & Tushman, M. L. (1986) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/0883-9026(86)90004-2 · Cited by 65
Eisenstat, R. A., Beer, M., Foote, N., et al. (2008) · PubMed · Cited by 61
General principles of management
Davies, A. J. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780198840480.003.0004 · Cited by 56
From egosystem to ecosystem: Implications for relationships, learning, and well-being.
Crocker, J. (2008) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11771-006 · Cited by 43
An Intellectual History of Abundance Putting Abundance in Context
Peach, J., & Dugger, W. M. (2006) · Journal of Economic Issues · doi:10.1080/00213624.2006.11506941 · Cited by 26
The Concept of `Paradox' in the Work of Max Weber
Symonds, M. E., & Pudsey, J. (2008) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/0038038507087351 · Cited by 17
Dynamic capabilities and strategic management
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11
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
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
