Abstract

Despite advancements in our understanding of organizational paradox, we know little about how individuals navigate paradox when tensions are core to one’s occupational role but not a dominant concern for senior leaders. This study explores how grantmakers working in corporate philanthropy navigate a business–society paradox when their leaders prioritize business over social objectives at the organization level. By analyzing interview data from grantmakers, alongside observations of their group meetings, I induce a peer-based model of navigating paradox. The findings reveal the important supportive role of relationships with “paradox peers”—ongoing, cooperative connections to individuals external to one’s organization but facing similar paradoxical challenges. I detail three relational mechanisms for engaging paradox that together facilitate the ability of individuals to navigate paradox in their home organizations: connecting with others to relieve tension, collectively protecting the paradox, and collaboratively brainstorming responses. My findings shift paradox scholarship toward a more relational understanding of navigating paradoxes, exploring how engaging tensions outside of one’s organizational boundaries can support the navigation of paradox internally.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. 1988. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Abdallah, C., Denis, J. L., & Langley, A. 2011. Having your cake and eating it too: Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24: 333–348. Google Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696–717. Google Scholar
Anteby, M., & Chan, C. K. 2018. A self-fulfilling cycle of coercive surveillance: Workers’ invisibility practices and managerial justification. Organization Science, 29: 247–263. Google Scholar
Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. 2016. Three lenses on occupations and professions in organizations: Becoming, doing, and relating. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 183–244.Link , Google Scholar
Augustine, G. 2021. We’re not like those crazy hippies: The dynamics of jurisdictional drift in externally mandated occupational groups. Organization Science, 32: 1056–1078. Google Scholar
Babbie, E. 1995. The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Google Scholar
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing—insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 397–441.Link , Google Scholar
Bechky, B. A. 2003. Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109: 720–752. Google Scholar
Bechky, B. A. 2011. Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22: 1157–1167. Google Scholar
Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S., & Sillince, J. 2017. Transcendence through rhetorical practices: Responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies, 38: 77–101. Google Scholar
Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. 2004. Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57: 1313–1332. Google Scholar
Berti, M., & Simpson, A. 2021. The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46: 252–274.Link , Google Scholar
Besharov, M. L. 2014. The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1485–1512.Link , Google Scholar
Blatt, R. 2009. Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Review, 34: 533–551.Link , Google Scholar
Bucher, R. 1988. On the natural history of health care occupations. Work and Occupations, 15: 131–147. Google Scholar
Buchter, L. 2021. Escaping the ellipsis of diversity: Insider activists’ use of implementation resources to influence organization policy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66: 521–565. Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., Dutton, J. E., & Hardin, A. E. 2015. Respect as an engine for new ideas: Linking respectful engagement, relational information processing and creativity among employees and teams. Human Relations, 68: 1021–1047. Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. 2009. High‐quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 709–729. Google Scholar
Carollo, L., & Guerci, M. 2018. “Activists in a suit”: Paradoxes and metaphors in sustainability managers’ identity work. Journal of Business Ethics, 148: 249–268. Google Scholar
Chandler, D. 2014. Organizational susceptibility to institutional complexity: Critical events driving the adoption and implementation of the ethics and compliance officer position. Organization Science, 25: 1722–1743. Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. 2002. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55: 483–503. Google Scholar
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. 1993. A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18: 621–656.Link , Google Scholar
Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. 2004. Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 928–937.Link , Google Scholar
Cuganesan, S. 2017. Identity paradoxes: How senior managers and employees negotiate similarity and distinctiveness tensions over time. Organization Studies, 38: 489–511. Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P. E., & Clegg, S. 2018. Persistence in paradox . In M. FarjounW. K. SmithA. LangleyH. Tsoukas (Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life: 14–34. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Cunha, M. P. E., & Putnam, L. L. 2019. Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17: 95–106. Google Scholar
DiBenigno, J. 2018. Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups: The case of US Army mental health care. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 526–569. Google Scholar
Dobbin, F. 2009. Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
Dobbin, F., Kalev, A., & Kelly, E. 2007. Diversity management in corporate America. Contexts, 6: 21–27. Google Scholar
Emirbayer, M. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103: 281–317. Google Scholar
Fayard, A.-L., Stigliani, I., & Bechky, B. A. 2017. How nascent occupations construct a mandate: The case of service designers’ ethos. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 270–303. Google Scholar
Fendt, J., & Sachs, W. 2008. Grounded theory method in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 11: 430–455. Google Scholar
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. 2015. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36: 363–390. Google Scholar
Gao, J., & Bansal, P. 2013. Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112: 241–255. Google Scholar
Gautier, A., & Pache, A.-C. 2015. Research on corporate philanthropy: A review and assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 126: 343–369. Google Scholar
Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. 2018. Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27: 284–300. Google Scholar
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16: 15–31. Google Scholar
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. 2002. Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 58–80.Link , Google Scholar
Golden-Biddle, K., & Rao, H. 1997. Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 8: 593–611. Google Scholar
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. 2010. Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. Human Relations, 63: 781–805. Google Scholar
Gümüsay, A. A., Smets, M., & Morris, T. 2020. “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 124–154.Link , Google Scholar
Gylfe, P., Franck, H., & Vaara, E. 2019. Living with paradox through irony. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155: 68–82. Google Scholar
Hafenbrädl, S., & Waeger, D. 2017. Ideology and the micro-foundations of CSR: Why executives believe in the business case for CSR and how this affects their CSR engagements. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1582–1606.Link , Google Scholar
Hahn, T., & Aragón-Correa, J. A. 2015. Toward cognitive plurality on corporate sustainability in organizations: The role of organizational factors. Organization & Environment, 28: 255–263. Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. 2018. A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148: 235–248. Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. 2015. Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127: 297–316. Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39: 463–487.Link , Google Scholar
Heaphy, E. D., Byron, K., Ballinger, G. A., Gittell, J. H., Leana, C., & Sluss, D. M. 2018. Introduction to special topic forum: The changing nature of work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 43: 558–569.Link , Google Scholar
Hengst, I. A., Jarzabkowski, P., Hoegl, M., & Muethel, M. 2020. Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 246–271.Link , Google Scholar
Himmelstein, J. L. 1997. Looking good and doing good: Corporate philanthropy and corporate power. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A. J., Earle, A. G., Haack, J. A., & Young, D. M. 2017. “If chemists don’t do it, who is going to?” Peer-driven occupational change and the emergence of green chemistry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 524–560. Google Scholar
Hughes, E. C. 1958. Men and their work. New York, NY: Free Press. Google Scholar
Huising, R. 2015. To hive or to hold? Producing professional authority through scut work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 263–299. Google Scholar
Huq, J. L., Reay, T., & Chreim, S. 2017. Protecting the paradox of interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies, 38: 513–538. Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11: 245–280. Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Lê, J. K. 2017. We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies, 38: 433–462. Google Scholar
Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 137–159.Link , Google Scholar
Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602–611. Google Scholar
Kanashiro, P., & Rivera, J. 2017. Do chief sustainability officers make companies greener? The moderating role of regulatory pressures. Journal of Business Ethics, 155: 1–15. Google Scholar
Kaplan, S. 2020. Beyond the business case for social responsibility. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6: 1–4.Link , Google Scholar
Keller, J., & Chen, E. W. 2017. A road map of the paradoxical mind . In W. K. SmithM. W. LewisP. JarzabkowskiA. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: 66–86. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. 2017. Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38: 539–560. Google Scholar
Keller, J., Wong, S. S., & Liou, S. 2020. How social networks facilitate collective responses to organizational paradoxes. Human Relations, 73: 401–428. Google Scholar
Kellogg, K. C. 2009. Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. American Journal of Sociology, 115: 657–711. Google Scholar
Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. 2017. Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38: 403–432. Google Scholar
Lê, J., & Bednarek, R. 2017. Paradox in everyday practice: Applying practice-theoretical principles to paradox . In W. K. SmithM. LewisP. JarzabkowskiA. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on organizational paradox: 490–509. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Lee, M. Y., Mazmanian, M., & Perlow, L. 2020. Fostering positive relational dynamics: The power of spaces and interaction scripts. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 96–123.Link , Google Scholar
Leung, A. K.-Y., Liou, S., Miron-Spektor, E., Koh, B., Chan, D., Eisenberg, R., & Schneider, I. 2018. Middle ground approach to paradox: Within- and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114: 443–464. Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25: 760–776.Link , Google Scholar
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. New York, NY: Sage. Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. 2020. Thriving at work: How a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56: 347–366. Google Scholar
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. 2008. Perspective—Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19: 907–918. Google Scholar
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221–240.Link , Google Scholar
Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. 2007. Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32: 925–945.Link , Google Scholar
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52: 397–422. Google Scholar
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363. Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). London, U.K.: Sage. 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: 229–240. Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2018. Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 26–45.Link , Google Scholar
Mische, A. 2011. Relational sociology, culture, and agency . In J. ScottP. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis: 90–97. London, U.K.: Sage. Google Scholar
Nelsen, B. J., & Barley, S. R. 1997. For love or money? Commodification and the construction of an occupational mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 619–653. Google Scholar
Nigam, A., Sackett, E., & Golden, B. 2022. Duality and social position: Role expectations of people who combine outsider-ness and insider-ness in organizational change. Organization Studies, 43: 413–435. Google Scholar
Polletta, F. 1999. “Free spaces” in collective action. Theory and Society, 28: 1–38. Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562–578.Link , Google Scholar
Pradies, C. 2022. With head and heart: How emotions shape paradox navigation in veterinary work. Academy of Management Journal. Published online ahead of print. doi:10.5465/amj.2019.0633. Google Scholar
Pradies, C., Delanghe, M., & Lewis, M. W. 2020. Paradoxes, leadership and the connecting leader . In Z. Jaser (Ed.), The connecting leader: Serving concurrently as a leader and a follower: 99–129. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Google Scholar
Pradies, C., Tunarosa, A., Lewis, M. W., & Courtois, J. 2021. From vicious to virtuous cycles: The social symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies, 42: 1241–1263. Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 65–171.Link , Google Scholar
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. 2006. Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 977–998.Link , Google Scholar
Risi, D., & Wickert, C. 2017. Reconsidering the “symmetry” between institutionalization and professionalization: The case of corporate social responsibility managers. Journal of Management Studies, 54: 613–646. Google Scholar
Rivera, L. A. 2012. Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77: 999–1022. Google Scholar
Rothman, N. B., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. 2007. The social consequences of expressing emotional ambivalence in groups and teams . In E. A. MannixM. A. NealeC. P. Anderson (Eds.), Affect and groups. Research on managing groups and teams, vol. 10: 275–308. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
Sandholtz, K., Chung, D., & Waisberg, I. 2019. The double-edged sword of jurisdictional entrenchment: Explaining human resources professionals’ failed strategic repositioning. Organization Science, 30: 1349–1367. Google Scholar
Sandholtz, K. W., & Burrows, T. N. 2016. Compliance police or business partner? Institutional complexity and occupational tensions in human resource management . In M. Lounsbury (Ed.), The structuring of work in organizations. Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 47: 161–191. Bingley, U.K.: Emerald. Google Scholar
Schabram, K., & Maitlis, S. 2017. Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 584–609.Link , Google Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 5–64.Link , Google Scholar
Schneider, A., Bullinger, B., & Brandl, J. 2021. Resourcing under tensions: How frontline employees create resources to balance paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 42: 1291–1317. Google Scholar
Seo, M.-G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change . In M. S. PooleA. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation: 73–107. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. 2017. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies, 38: 341–364. Google Scholar
Sharma, G., & Good, D. 2013. The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49: 95–122. Google Scholar
Sharma, G., Bartunek, J., Buzzanell, P. M., Carmine, S., Endres, C., Etter, M., Fairhurst, G., Hahn, T., Lê, P., Li, X., Pamphile, V., Pradies, C., Putnam, L. L., Rocheville, K., Schad, J., & Sheep, M. 2021. A paradox approach to societal tensions during the pandemic crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30: 121–137. Google Scholar
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. 2017. Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38: 463–488. Google Scholar
Sleesman, D. J. 2019. Pushing through the tension while stuck in the mud: Paradox mindset and escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155: 83–96. Google Scholar
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32: 9–32.Link , Google Scholar
Small, M. L. 2009a. How many cases do I need? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10: 5–38. Google Scholar
Small, M. L. 2009b. Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Small, M. L., Pamphile, V. D., & McMahan, P. 2015. How stable is the core discussion network? Social Networks, 40: 90–102. Google Scholar
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592–1623.Link , Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. 2019. Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 1–44. Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. 2010. Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43: 448–461. Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. 2013. Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23: 407–442. 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: 381–403.Link , Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536. Google Scholar
Soderstrom, S. B., & Weber, K. 2020. Organizational structure from interaction: Evidence from corporate sustainability efforts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65: 226–271. Google Scholar
Sonenshein, S., Nault, K., & Obodaru, O. 2017. Competition of a different flavor: How a strategic group identity shapes competition and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 626–656. Google Scholar
Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., Carmeli, A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Dutton, J. E. 2013. Relationship quality and virtuousness: Emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49: 13–41. Google Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. 1998. Basics of qualitative research, vol. 2. London, U.K.: Sage. Google Scholar
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28: 397–415.Link , Google Scholar
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 685–718. Google Scholar
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. 2009. Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34: 689–709.Link , Google Scholar
Tilcsik, A., & Marquis, C. 2013. Punctuated generosity: How mega-events and natural disasters affect corporate philanthropy in US communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 111–148. Google Scholar
Van der Byl, C. A., & Slawinski, N. 2015. Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28: 54–79. Google Scholar
Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. 1984. Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations . In B. M. StawL. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 6: 287–365. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17: 1–21. Google Scholar
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 539–552.Link , Google Scholar
Wenzel, M., Koch, J., Cornelissen, J. P., Rothmann, W., & Senf, N. N. 2019. How organizational actors live out paradoxical tensions through power relations: The case of a youth prison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155: 55–67. Google Scholar
Whetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490–495.Link , Google Scholar
Wickert, C., & de Bakker, F. G. 2018. Pitching for social change: Toward a relational approach to selling and buying social issues. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4: 50–73.Link , Google Scholar
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. 2012. Working with passion: Emotionology, corporate environmentalism and climate change. Human Relations, 65: 1561–1587. Google Scholar
Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. 2017. An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Academy of Management Journal, 60: 1633–1661.Link , Google Scholar
Wright, C., Nyberg, D., & Grant, D. 2012. “Hippies on the third floor”: Climate change, narrative identity and the micro-politics of corporate environmentalism. Organization Studies, 33: 1451–1475. Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. 2015. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 538–566.Link , Google Scholar
Zheng, W., Kark, R., & Meister, A. L. 2018. Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. Leadership Quarterly, 29: 584–596. Google Scholar

Vol. 65, No. 4

Permissions

Metrics

in the past 12 months

History

Published online 19 August 2022

Published in print 1 August 2022

Information

Acknowledgments

I thank Associate Editor Wendy Smith for her supportive guidance throughout the review process and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. I am grateful for the advice that improved the quality of this paper along the way, particularly the feedback I received from Camille Pradies, Grace Augustine, David Chandler, Daphne Demetry, Tobias Hahn, Ali Gümüsay, Brayden King, Carrie Oelberger, Mary Pattillo, Nevena Radoynovska, Katina Sawyer, Jim Wade, the COSI conference, the EGOS 2019 Paradox Track and PDW, and the GRONEN Reading Group. This research was supported by NSF Award Number 1637182. All errors remain my own.

Download PDF

Paradox Peers: A Relational Approach to Navigating a Business–Society Paradox

Abstract

REFERENCES