Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward

By J. Schad, Marianne W. Lewis, Sebastian Raisch, Wendy K. Smith. 2016

1,117 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0ca3dce456f6490a9eb8e5e834dbf3bc7c56b0a7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Leading through paradox in a COVID‐19 world: Human resources comes of age (2021, background): “A paradox perspective emphasises that awareness of two conflicting options does not necessitate a compromise (Lewis, 2000; Schad et al., 2016), but rather can lead to novel solutions enabling more sustainable organisational performance (Aust et al.”
The paradox of employee psychological well-being practices: an integrative literature review and new directions for research (2019, positive): “Schad et al. (2016) claim that paradox as a metatheory offers a powerful lens as an explanandum of tensions, which are ubiquitous in organisations.”
Thriving at Work: How a Paradox Mindset Influences Innovative Work Behavior (2019, background): “First, this study responds to the calls for examining individuals’ approaches to the experience of paradox in the future (Leung et al., 2018; Schad et al., 2016).”
Paradox theory and the paradox of success (2019, background): “Organizing paradoxes refer to the tensions in competing designs and processes, such as rigid alignment versus flexibility, and performing paradoxes deal with internal and external demands between goals and performance (Schad et al., 2016).”
Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership (2019, background): “Although different authors have suggested that paradoxical leadership may benefit innovation and creativity (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Lewis et al., 2014; Rosing et al., 2011; Schad et al., 2016), empirical support for this idea is scarce.”
Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation–Augmentation Paradox (2020, background): “Paradox theory offers a more constructive response to tensions by envisioning a virtuous cycle, with organizations overcoming their defensiveness to embrace these tensions and viewing them as an opportunity to find synergies that accommodate and transcend the opposing poles (Schad et al., 2016).”
Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem (2017, background): “Prior studies emphasize the benefits of tensions but also noted their challenges (Schad et al., 2016).”