Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes

By Wendy K. Smith. 2014

689 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/e3adb9d98221954e0a90610154d1c80a403b9074

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

Creative Leadership: A Multi-Context Conceptualization† (2015, background): “These works highlight the need for leadership that can effectively attend to competing expectations and manage tensions and complex organizational structures (e.g. Dacin et al., 2011; Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011; Smith, 2014).”
Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms (2019, background): “Ambidexterity represents a paradox as it requires the TMT to simultaneously address opposing demands: focus versus experimentation, efficiency versus flexibility, refinement versus search, consistency versus divergence (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009, 2010; Fredberg, 2014; Smith, 2014; Smith & Tushman, ”
Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation (2018, background): “One mechanism of managing a paradox in the context of ambidexterity that has begun receiving scholarly attention is a combination of integration and differentiation approaches (Smith, 2015).”
Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award—“Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited” Ten Years Later (2015, background): “…forward and backward (e.g., Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000), deal with paradox (e.g., Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), are consistently inconsistent (e.g., Smith, 2014), build organizational contexts that support exploration and exploitation (e.g., O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008), and shape their…”
Flexing the Frame: TMT Framing and the Adoption of Non-Incremental Innovations in Incumbent Firms (2017, positive): “Because the adoption of non-incremental innovations often triggers ambiguous or competing tensions, TMTs who are able to develop a more flexible frame are more likely to reconcile and embrace contradictory innovations in a manner that accounts for “necessary paradox” (Smith, 2014: 1592).”
The Interplay between Intuition and Rationality in Strategic Decision Making: A Paradox Perspective (2017, positive): “The more recent dynamic perspective on paradox management postulates (Smith & Lewis, 2011) and provides empirical evidence (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Jay, 2013; Smith, 2014) that the differentiating and integrating strategies can be used together, in purposeful and cyclical alternation over time.”
Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance (2016, background): “Differences in actual outcomes notwithstanding, “a paradox lens stresses ideal, and paradoxical, outcomes of peak performance and sustainability” by enabling virtuous cycles of learning, discovery, and creativity (Lewis and Smith, 2014: 10).”
Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework (2018, background): “…2010; Howell and Boies, 2004; Makri and Scandura, 2010; Marcy, 2015; Osborn and Marion, 2009), paradox and tension (Fairhurst et al., 2016; Kan and Parry, 2004; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, and Smith, 2016; Smith, 2014), and collective leadership (Foldy, Goldman, and Ospina, 2008; Ospina and Foldy, 2010).”
Uncertainty Types and Transitions in the Entrepreneurial Process (2017, background): “Adopting these (realistic) assumptions allows researchers to explore how individuals make adaptive judgments over time, how feedback and learning loops influence the process, and how the judgment process changes with conditions (e.g. Gonzalez et al. 2003; Smith 2014).”
Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem (2017, background): “Accumulating empirical studies, however, have focused on investigating the nature of and responses to these tensions at the organizational level (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) and among senior leadership (Smith, 2014; Zhang, Waldman, Han, & Li, 2015).”
Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion (2018, background): “Third, in the paradox literature, most of the attention has been placed on studying paradoxical tensions at the organizational level (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014; Smith, 2014).”
The Dark Side of Organizational Paradoxes: The Dynamics of Disempowerment (2019, background): “Opposite demands can be compensated through vacillation and a search for balance (Smith 2014)—for example, addressing different competing norms or demands by oscillating between them at different points in time (Tracy 2004).”