Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide

By Marianne W. Lewis. 2000

2,408 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e2b7902c425220562cb4d3fbedacdbadceb35cd8

How researchers see this paper

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective (2014, background): “For example, Lewis (2000) outlined strategies of acceptance, confrontation, and transcendence as means to proactively explore tensions, tapping the potential power of paradox to enable change and creativity.”
Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of Managing Continuity and Change (2011, background): “…the extensive body of organizational change literature, undertaken in the first part of the article, suggests a clear shift in approach from trade-offs (either–or) to paradoxical thinking (Eisenhardt, 2000; Lewis, 2000), reiterating the fact that ‘managing change is invariably managing paradoxes’.”
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management (2013, background): “This is a paradox because each possibility is tenable in isolation, but their combinations are not (Lewis, 2000).”
Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness (2015, background): “The benefits of simultaneous achievement goals depend on one’s ability to regulate each goal and cope with the inherent tension between the two (Emsley, 2003; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth? (2007, background): “Indeed, organizations have a tendency to limit the expression of diverging or paradoxical opinions about a given subject to reinforce their cohesion and legitimacy and create a more coherent image for themselves (Morrison and Milliken 2000, Glynn et al. 2000, Lewis 2000).”
From Creativity to Innovation: The Social Network Drivers of the Four Phases of the Idea Journey (2017, background): “Creators may cling to prior approaches (Lewis, 2000) and stay within a comfortable and familiar social space (Ford, 1996).”
The Dark Side of Organizational Paradoxes: The Dynamics of Disempowerment (2019, background): “Unlike ‘normal’ organizational paradoxes, contradictions stemming from an inescapable pressure to attend to opposite but interrelated demands (Lewis 2000; Smith & Lewis 2011) can be considered a pathology that emerges when asymmetrical relations of power inhibit or impede actors in”
Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership (2019, background): “These five dimensions address different paradoxes, but when considering creativity, the balance between control and autonomy and between structure and flexibility are most relevant (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011).”
Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition (2009, background): “Because of its competing goals of innovation and efficiency, exploration and exploitation are often described as paradoxical (Lewis, 2000).”
The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective (2017, positive): “Strategies of resolution seek to resolve the underlying tensions not by eliminating them but by finding ways to meet the competing demands – that is, by engaging in paradoxical thinking (Lewis, 2000).”
Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance (2016, background): “Defensive responses, initially seen as more typical, involve attempts to temporarily resolve or eliminate the inherent tensions in contradictions (Lewis, 2000).”
Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World (2013, neutral): “In contrast to what the contingency approach would suggest, there is no general solution to the problem of strategy selection that can be applied in advance (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011).”