A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm

By Ikujiro Nonaka, Ryoko Toyama. 2002

375 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9fdc5a17e856b581f2f67fc76b49324ae7a4f22d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Connecting local entrepreneurial ecosystems to global innovation networks: open innovation, double networks and knowledge integration (2011, background): “To fully exploit the external sources of technology – suppliers, customers, competitors, universities, government and local communities – a firm must be embedded in a locality (Nonaka and Toyama, 2002).”
Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis (2004, background): “through the development of "synthesizing capability" to create competitive advantage out of conflicting forces as advocated by Nonaka and Toyama (2002), the adoption of ambidextrous organizational design principles as advocated by Tushman and O'Reilly (1996), or the pursuit of a "semi-structures" de”
The Theory of the Knowledge-Creating Firm: Subjectivity, Objectivity and Synthesis (2005, methodology): “Dialogues: the synthesis of thoughts Knowledge creation is guided through the synthesis of contradictions (Nonaka and Toyama, 2002, 2003).”
The entrepreneur and the style of modern economics (2004, background): “Hence, one of the central problems faced by any firm is how to frame its activities efficiently and effectively while permitting flexibility to external pressures and simultaneously being open to entrepreneurial conjectures ( Nonaka and Toyama, 2002 ).”
The Negative Effects of Social Capital in Organizations: A Review and Extension (2017, positive): “Knowledge-based theories of the firm (e.g. Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995; Spender 1996) are predicated on the assumption that knowledge creation is a dynamic, dialectical process, wherein knowledge emerges by reconciling contradictions (Nonaka and Toyama 2002).”
Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective (2014, background): “Likewise, peak performance may reinforce, even raise recurring demands among a firms’ varied stakeholders, such as shareholders, employees, customers, and suppliers (Jones, 1995; Nonaka & Toyama, 2002).”
Cognitive Frames, Learning Mechanisms, and Innovation Ambidexterity* (2014, background): “, between the demands of individuals versus the group, between the need for focus versus flexibility, the need for differentiation versus integration, and between autonomy versus democracy (Cameron and Quinn, 1988; Flynn and Chatman, 2001; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Nonaka and Toyama, 2002; Rivkin a”
Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes (2014, background): “Research is replete with examples of strategic paradoxes, including tensions between global integration and local adaptation, financial profitability and social missions, or high commitment and high performance (i.e., Beer, 2009; Clegg, 2002; Gittell, 2004; Nonaka & Toyama, 2002).”
The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process (2003, background): “We conceptualize knowledge creation as a dialectical process, in which various contradictions are synthesized through dynamic interactions among individuals, the organization, and the environment (Nonaka & Toyama, 2002).”