Special Issue
On the Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions in Management and Organization Research
Bart De Keyser,
Alain Guiette,
Koen Vandenbempt,
Corresponding Author
Bart De Keyser
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Corresponding author email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAlain Guiette
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorKoen Vandenbempt
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Antwerp Management School, Boogkeers 5, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Search for more papers by this author
Bart De Keyser,
Alain Guiette,
Koen Vandenbempt,
Corresponding Author
Bart De Keyser
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Corresponding author email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorAlain Guiette
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorKoen Vandenbempt
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Antwerp Management School, Boogkeers 5, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Although research relating to paradox has burgeoned throughout the past decades, how paradox has been used in generating theoretical contributions remains largely tacit. Hinging on the systematic analysis of 476 publications, this literature review uncovers how scholars have leveraged paradox in demarcating theoretical contributions in the area of management and organization research. First, scholars can make use of paradox as a means to theorize, adding to the core conceptual conversation on paradox. Second, scholars can make use of paradox as a means to understand or advance insight on particular phenomena, drawing from paradox's conceptual knowledge to push forth discussions or debates in other strands of the management and organization field. Finally, scholars can make use of paradox as a way to verbalize something puzzling or surprising, supporting how readers are to appreciate or make sense of theoretical contributions advanced. Denoting approaches identified as highly complementary, this paper offers explicit handholds for academics to develop theoretical contributions through paradox, supporting the consolidation and further elevation of scholarly impact for the paradox community as such.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| ijmr12201-sup-0001-SuppMatAppendix.docx118.1 KB | Appendix S1. Example of paper codification. Appendix S2. Overview of articles reviewed, according to approach of using paradox for making theoretical contributions. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
References
- Ahearne, M., Lam, S.K. and Kraus, F. (2014). Performance impact of middle managers’ adaptive strategy implementation: the role of social capital. Strategic Management Journal, 35, pp. 68–87.
- Albert, D., Kreutzer, M. and Lechner, C. (2015). Resolving the paradox of interdependency and strategic renewal in activity systems. Academy of Management Review, 40, pp. 210–234.
- Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, pp. 128–152.
- Anand, N. and Barsoux, J.-L. (2017). What everyone gets wrong about change management. Harvard Business Review, 95, pp. 79–85.
- Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2001). The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training and learning. Journal of Management Studies, 38, pp. 327–350.
- Aram, J.D. (1989). The paradox of interdependent relations in the field of social-issues in management. Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 266–283.
- Ashcraft, G.E.K.L. and Trethewey, A. (2004). Special issue synthesis: Developing tension: an agenda for applied research on the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, pp. 171–181.
- Ashford, S.J. (2013). Having scholarly impact: the art of hitting academic home runs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, pp. 623–633.
- Ashforth, B.E. and Reingen, P.H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, pp. 474–516.
- Ashforth, B.E., Rogers, K.M., Pratt, M.G. and Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: a multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25, pp. 1453–1478.
- Audia, P.G., Locke, E.A. and Smith, K.G. (2000). The paradox of success: an archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 837–853.
- Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S. and Sillince, J. (2017). Transcendence through rhetorical practices: responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 77–101.
- Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R. and MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57, pp. 1313–1332.
- Bergh, D.D. (2003). Thinking strategically about contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 135–136.
- Bernstein, E.S. (2012). The transparency paradox: a role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, pp. 181–216.
- Birkinshaw, J. and Ridderstråle, J. (2017). Fast/Forward: Make your Company Fit for the Future. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.1515/9781503602311 Google Scholar
- Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (1994). Reflections on qualitative data analysis. In A. Bryman and R.G. Burgess (eds), Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, pp. 216–226.
10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_11 Google Scholar
- Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (1996). Paradox lost? Firm-level evidence on the returns to information systems spending. Management Science, 42, pp. 541–558.
- Calabretta, G., Gemser, G. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: a paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 365–401.
- Cameron, K.S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, pp. 539–553.
- Castilla, E.J. and Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, pp. 543–576.
- Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36, pp. 12–32.
- Corley, K.G. and Schinoff, B.S. (2017). Who, me? An inductive study of novice experts in the context of how editors come to understand theoretical contribution. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 31, pp. 4–27.
- Cornelissen, J.P. and Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: developing theoretical contributions in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 51, pp. 995–1022.
- Costanzo, L.A. and Di Domenico, M. (2015). A multi-level dialectical-paradox lens for top management team strategic decision-making in a corporate venture. British Journal of Management, 26, pp. 484–506.
- Cuganesan, S. (2017). Identity paradoxes: how senior managers and employees negotiate similarity and distinctiveness tensions over time. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 489–511.
- Cunha, M.P. e and Putnam, L.L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17, pp. 95–106.
- Cutcher, L. (2014). Bringing back the bank: local renewal and agency through community banking. Organization Studies, 35, pp. 103–119.
- Dameron, S. and Torset, C. (2014). The discursive construction of strategists’ subjectivities: towards a paradox lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 51, pp. 291–319.
- Daniel, E., Di Domenico, M. and Nunan, D. (2018). Virtual mobility and the lonely cloud: theorizing the mobility–isolation paradox for self-employed knowledge-workers in the online home-based business context. Journal of Management Studies, 55, pp. 174–203.
- Davidson, D. (1990). Paradoxes of Irrationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Davis, A.S., Maranville, S.J. and Obloj, K. (1997). The paradoxical process of organizational transformation: propositions and a case study. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 10, pp. 275–314.
- Davis, M.S. (1971). That's interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, pp. 309–344.
10.1177/004839317100100211 Google Scholar
- Delacour, H. and Leca, B. (2017). The paradox of controversial innovation: insights from the rise of impressionism. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 597–618.
- Delbridge, R. and Fiss, P.C. (2013). Editors’ comments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38, pp. 325–331.
- Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R.E. (1995). Paradox and performance – toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6, pp. 524–540.
- Dubin, R. (1978). Theory Development. New York: Free Press.
- Eikhof, D.R. and Haunschild, A. (2007). For art's sake! Artistic and economic logics in creative production. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 523–538.
- Engeström, Y. and Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: a methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, pp. 368–387.
- Fairhurst, G.T., Smith, W.K., Banghart, S.G., Lewis, M.W., Putnam, L.L., Raisch, S. and Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and converging: integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10, pp. 173–182.
- Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, pp. 202–225.
- Fiegenbaum, A. and Thomas, H. (1988). Attitudes toward risk and the risk–return paradox – prospect-theory explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp. 85–106.
- Fiol, C.M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: the role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13, pp. 653–666.
- Ford, J.D. and Backoff, R.W. (1988). Organizational Change In and Out of Dualities and Paradox. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger/Harper & Row.
- Foss, N.J. and Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: a goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value creation. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, pp. 85–102.
- Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., e Cunha, M.P. and Clegg, S. (2018). Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7, p. 6.
10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9 Google Scholar
- Gander, J., Haberberg, A. and Rieple, A. (2007). A paradox of alliance management: resource contamination in the recorded music industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 607–624.
- Gann, L. (2017). What is considered a good impact factor? Available at: http://mdanderson.libanswers.com (accessed 28 March 2018).
- Garud, R., Schildt, H.A. and Lant, T.K. (2014). Entrepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25, pp. 1479–1492.
- Gentner, D. and Stevens, A.L. (2014). Mental Models. London: Psychology Press.
10.4324/9781315802725 Google Scholar
- Gergen, K.J. (1982). Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag.
10.1007/978-1-4612-5706-6 Google Scholar
- Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations, 62, pp. 905–935.
- Gilbert, C.G. (2006). Change in the presence of residual fit: can competing frames coexist? Organization Science, 17, pp. 150–167.
- Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, pp. 433–448.
- Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, pp. 584–602.
- Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W. and Ingram, A.E. (2010). Managing creatives: paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. Human Relations, 63, pp. 781–805.
- Guthey, E. and Jackson, B. (2005). CEO portraits and the authenticity paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 42, pp. 1057–1082.
- Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. and Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39, pp. 463–487.
- Hargrave, T.J. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 319–339.
- Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D.C. (2006). Actionable strategy knowledge: a practice perspective. European Management Journal, 24, pp. 348–367.
10.1016/j.emj.2006.05.009 Google Scholar
- Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007). Strategizing: the challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60, pp. 5–27.
- Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K. and Cacciatori, E. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17, pp. 120–132.
- Jarzabkowski, P., Le, J.K. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: how organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11, pp. 245–280.
- Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, pp. 137–159.
- Jesson, J., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques. London: Sage.
- Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 71–115.
- Johnston, S. and Selsky, J.W. (2006). Duality and paradox: trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice. Organization Studies, 27, pp. 183–205.
- Kacperczyk, A. and Younkin, P. (2017). The paradox of breadth: the tension between experience and legitimacy in the transition to entrepreneurship. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, pp. 731–764.
- Kilduff, M. (2006). Editors’ comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 252–255.
- King, A.W. and Zeithaml, C.P. (2001). Competencies and firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 75–99.
- Knight, E. and Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: the TMT leader's role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 403–432.
- Kodama, M. (2003). Strategic innovation in traditional big business: case studies of two Japanese companies. Organization Studies, 24, pp. 235–268.
- Kovacs, B. and Sharkey, A.J. (2014). The paradox of publicity: how awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, pp. 1–33.
- Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lado, A.A., Boyd, N.G., Wright, P. and Kroll, M. (2006). Paradox and theorizing within the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 115–131.
- Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D. (2015). The paradox of resource vulnerability: considerations for organizational curatorship. Strategic Management Journal, 36, pp. 397–415.
- Le Roy, F. and Fernandez, A.S. (2015). Managing coopetitive tensions at the working-group level: the rise of the coopetitive project team. British Journal of Management, 26, pp. 671–688.
- LePine, J.A. and Wilcox-King, A. (2010). Editors’ comments: Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, pp. 506–509.
- Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 760–776.
- Lewis, M.W. and Grimes, A.J. (1999). Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 672–690.
- Lewis, M.W. and Kelemen, M.L. (2002). Multiparadigm inquiry: exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55, pp. 251–275.
- Littler, C.R. and Innes, P. (2004). The paradox of managerial downsizing. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1159–1184.
- Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A. and Tse, D.K. (2007). Working with rivals: the impact of competitor alliances on financial performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, pp. 73–83.
- Luscher, L.S., Lewis, M. and Ingram, A. (2006). The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19, pp. 491–502.
- Luscher, L.S. and Lewis, M.W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, pp. 221–240.
- MacLean, D. and MacIntosh, R. (2015). Planning reconsidered: paradox, poetry and people at the edge of strategy. European Management Journal, 33, pp. 72–78.
- Marrone, J.A., Tesluk, P.E. and Carson, J.B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, pp. 1423–1439.
- Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24, pp. 1337–1357.
- McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T.H., Patil, D. and Barton, D. (2012). Big data: the management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90, pp. 60–68.
- Miller, S.R., Indro, D.C., Richards, M. and Chng, D.H.M. (2013). Financial implications of local and nonlocal rival isomorphism: a signaling paradox. Journal of Management, 39, pp. 1979–2008.
- Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, pp. 740–760.
- Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: the problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61, pp. 26–45.
- Muhlhaus, J. and Bouwmeester, O. (2016). The paradoxical effect of self-categorization on work stress in a high-status occupation: insights from management consulting. Human Relations, 69, pp. 1823–1852.
- Navis, C. and Ozbek, O.V. (2016). The right people in the wrong places: the paradox of entrepreneurial entry and successful opportunity realization. Academy of Management Review, 41, pp. 109–129.
- Neeley, T.B. and Leonardi, P.M. (2018). Enacting knowledge strategy through social media: passable trust and the paradox of nonwork interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 39, pp. 922–946.
- Ofori-Dankwa, J. and Julian, S.D. (2004). Conceptualizing social science paradoxes using the diversity and similarity curves model: illustrations from the work/play and theory novelty/continuity paradoxes. Human Relations, 57, pp. 1449–1477.
- Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. and Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and analogical reasoning in organization theory: beyond orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27, pp. 294–303.
- Perry-Smith, J.E. and Mannucci, P.V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: the social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42, pp. 53–79.
- Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26, pp. 473–488.
- Poggi, G. (1965). A main theme of contemporary sociological analysis: its achievements and limitations. The British Journal of Sociology, 16, pp. 283–294.
- Poole, M.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 562–578.
- Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, pp. 5–14.
10.1002/dir.20015 Google Scholar
- Pratt, M.G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52, pp. 856–862.
- Putnam, L.L., Fairhurst, G.T. and Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10, pp. 65–171.
- Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (eds) (1988). Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger/Harper & Row.
- Qureshi, M.O. and Syed, R.S. (2014). The impact of robotics on employment and motivation of employees in the service sector, with special reference to health care. Safety and Health at Work, 5, pp. 198–202.
- Ramos-Rodríguez, A.R. and Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the strategic management journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, pp. 981–1004.
- Repenning, N.P., Kieffer, D. and Repenning, J. (2018). A new approach to designing work. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59, pp. 29–38.
- Rindova, V. (2011). Moving from ideas to a theoretical contribution: comments on the process of developing theory in organizational research. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 47, pp. 19–21.
- Ruefli, T.W. (1990). Mean–variance approaches to risk–return relationships in strategy: paradox lost. Management Science, 36, pp. 368–380.
- Rynes, S. (2002). Some reflections on contribution. Academy of Management Journal, 45, pp. 311–313.
10.5465/AMJ.2002.17571225 Google Scholar
- Sastry, M.A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 237–275.
- Schad, J. and Bansal, P. (2018). Seeing the forest and the trees: how a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies, 55, pp. 1490–1506.
- Schad, J., Lewis, M.W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W.K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10, pp. 5–64.
- Schad, J., Lewis, M.W. and Smith, W.K. (2019). Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17, pp. 107–119.
- Schmitt, A. and Raisch, S. (2013). Corporate turnarounds: the duality of retrenchment and recovery. Journal of Management Studies, 50, pp. 1216–1244.
- Schmitt, A., Raisch, S. and Volberda, H.W. (2018). Strategic renewal: past research, theoretical tensions and future challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, pp. 81–98.
- Shaver, J.M. (2006). A paradox of synergy: contagion and capacity effects in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 962–976.
- Sheep, M.L., Fairhurst, G.T. and Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 463–488.
- Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M.W. and Tracey, P. (2017a). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 303–317.
- W. Smith, M. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski and A. Langley (eds) (2017b). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Smith, W.K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: a model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57, pp. 1592–1623.
- Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, pp. 381–403.
- Smith, W.K. and Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional complexity and paradox theory: complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14, pp. 455–466.
- Stadtler, L. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2016). Coopetition as a paradox: integrative approaches in a multi-company, cross-sector partnership. Organization Studies, 37, pp. 655–685.
- Thompson, P., Jones, M. and Warhurst, C. (2007). From conception to consumption: creativity and the missing managerial link. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 625–640.
- Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222.
- Tse, T. (2013). Paradox resolution: a means to achieve strategic innovation. European Management Journal, 31, pp. 682–696.
- Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
- Wadhwa, A., Freitas, I.M.B. and Sarkar, M.B. (2017). The paradox of openness and value protection strategies: effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organization Science, 28, pp. 873–893.
- Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations, Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 37–58.
- Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 490–495.
- Wooldridge, A. (2016). The rise of the superstars. The Economist, 420, pp. 1–16.
- Zhang, Y., George, J.A. and Chan, T.S. (2006). The paradox of dueling identities: the case of local senior executives in MNC subsidiaries. Journal of Management, 32, pp. 400–425.
- Zhang, Y., Waldman, D.A., Han, Y.L. and Li, X.B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58, pp. 538–566.
Citing Literature
