Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Paradox Management pp 1–18Cite as

Introduction: The Quest for Value

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 702 Accesses

Abstract

More and more researchers and managers take an interest in organizational paradoxes, where we need to handle elements that are at once interdependent and contradictory.

Researchers claim that there is a close relationship between our responses to the paradoxes and the value we create for ourselves and others. This book is a quest for this value. It is based on the international research on organizational paradoxes, which is expanding in current years and now counts around 700 sources. The introduction frames the issue of organizational paradoxes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Andersen, M. F. (2016, 25. november). Arbejdsrelateret stress løses ikke med flere buzzwords. Information. Retrieved from http://www.information.dk

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, L. B. (1981). Managing the Paradox of Organizational Trust. Harvard Business Review, 59(2), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, M., & Raza-Ullah, T. (2017). Paradox at an Inter-Firm Level: A Coopetition Lens. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Boland, R. J. (2012). Dialectics of Collective Minding: Contradictory Appropriations of Information Technology in a High-Risk Project. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1081–1108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Random House Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dameron, S., & Torset, C. (2014). The Discursive Construction of Strategists’ Subjectivities: Towards a Paradox Lens on Strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 291–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of Strategic Alliances: An Internal Tensions Perspective. Organization Science, 11(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership. Organizational Science, 6(5), 524–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus Paradox: An Analysis of a Totally Destructive System. Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 176–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., & Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and Converging: Integrative Insights on a Paradox Meta-Perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldthus, H. (2017, 2. februar 2017). Paradoksledelse er den direkte vej til helvede. DJØF Bladet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. (2006). Discourses of Leadership: Gender, Identity and Contradiction in a UK Public Sector Organization. Leadership, 2(1), 77–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles Executives Play: CEOs, Behavioral Complexity, and Firm Performance. Human Relations, 46(5), 543–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiberg Johansen, J. (2015). Frontline Paradox Tactics. MBA dissertation, Henley Business School – University of Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., & Beech, N. (2003). Contrary Prescriptions: Recognizing Good Practice Tensions in Management. Organization Studies, 24(1), 69–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, W. A. (1999). Dualism, Duality and the Complexity of Economic Institutions. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(4), 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., Le, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to Competing Strategic Demands: How Organizing, Belonging, and Performing Paradoxes Coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Le, J. K. (2016). We Have to Do This and That? You Must Be Joking: Constructing and Responding to Paradox Through Humor. Organization Studies, 38, 433–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klang, D., Wallnoefer, M., & Hacklin, F. (2014). The Business Model Paradox: A Systematic Review and Exploration of Antecedents. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 454–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the Beat–Rhythms of Change and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 160–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kodama, M. (2003). Strategic Innovation in Traditional Big Business: Case Studies of Two Japanese Companies. Organization Studies, 24(2), 235–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where Is the “Me” among the “We”? Identity Work and the Search for Optimal Balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1031–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lado, A. A., Dant, R. R., & Tekleab, A. G. (2008). Trust-Opportunism Paradox, Relationalism, and Performance in Interfirm Relationships: Evidence from the Retail Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. (1998). Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity through Conflict and Integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The Coopetition Paradox and Tension in Coopetition at Multiple Levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robey, D., & Holmstrom, J. (2001). Transforming Municipal Governance in Global Context: A Case Study of the Dialectics of Social Change. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 4(4), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, A., & Raisch, S. (2013). Corporate Turnarounds: The Duality of Retrenchment and Recovery. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 1216–1244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2016). Knots in the Discourse of Innovation: Investigating Multiple Tensions in a Reacquired Spin-Off. Organization Studies, 38, 463–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovstiga, G. (2013). Strategy in Practice: A Practitioner’s Guide to Strategic Thinking. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2017). Critical Management Studies and Paradox. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (p. 17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velu, C., & Stiles, P. (2013). Managing Decision-Making and Cannibalization for Parallel Business Models. Long Range Planning, 46(6), 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasson, C. (2004). The Paradoxical Language of Enterprise. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(2), 175–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, R. F. (1998). The Sound of One Hand Clapping: Counterintuitive Lessons Extracted from Paradoxes and Double Binds in Participative Organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 11(3), 323–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. P., Paroutis, S. E., & Blettner, D. P. (2013). How Useful Are the Strategic Tools We Teach in Business Schools? Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 92–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Scholar, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jan Heiberg Johansen

Authors
  1. Jan Heiberg Johansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Heiberg Johansen, J. (2019). Introduction: The Quest for Value. In: Paradox Management. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94815-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation