Restricted accessIntroductionFirst published online 2017-4
Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox,Tensions,and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox,Tensions,and Dualities of Innovation and Change
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
2.
AndriopoulosC.LewisM. W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.
3.
AngS. H. (2008). Competitive intensity and collaboration: Impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1057–1075.
4.
BaerM.LeendersR. T. A. J.OldhamG. R.VaderaA. (2010). Win or lose the battle for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 827–845.
5.
BarnardC. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BensonJ. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1–21.
7.
BledowR.FreseM.AndersonN.ErezM.FarrJ. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 305–337.
8.
ChenM. J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179–199.
9.
DahlinK. B.WeingartL. R.HindsP. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107–1123.
10.
Di DomenicoH.HaughH.TraceyP. (2010) Social bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social enterprise. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 34, 681–703.
11.
DiefenbachT.SillinceJ. A. (2011). Formal and informal hierarchy in different types of organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1515–1537.
FordJ. D.FordL. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19, 756–785.
17.
GarudR.GehmanJ.KumaraswamyA. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies, 32, 737–767.
18.
GebertD.BoernerS.KearneyE. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies?Organization Science, 21, 593–608.
19.
HatchM. J.EhrlichS. B. (1993). Spontaneous humor as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14, 505–526.
20.
IngramP.YueC. Q. (2008). Structure, affect, and identity as bases of organizational competition and cooperation. Annals of the Academy of Management, 2, 275–303.
21.
JarvenpaaS. L.WernickA. (2011). Paradoxical tensions in open innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 521–548.
22.
JarzabkowskiP.SillinceJ. (2007). A rhetoric-in-context approach to building commitment to multiple strategic goals. Organization Studies, 28, 1639–1665.
23.
JohnstonS.SelskyJ. (2005). Duality and paradox: Trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice. Organization Studies, 27, 183–205.
24.
KleinK. J.ZiegertJ. C.KnightA.XiaoY. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590–621.
25.
LavieD.StettnerU.TushmanM. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155.
26.
LawrenceP.LorschJ. (1967). Organizations and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
27.
LisakA.ErezM.YangS.LeeC. (2016). The positive role of global leaders in enhancing multicultural team innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 655–673.
28.
MarchJ. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
29.
MazmanianM.OrlikowskiW.YatesJ. (2013). The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science, 24, 1337–1357.
30.
Miron-SpektorE.ErezM. (2017). Looking at creativity through a paradox lens: Deeper understanding and new insights. In SmithW. K.LewisM. W.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
31.
Miron-SpektorE.ErezM.NavehE. (2011). The effect of conformists and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760.
32.
MironE.ErezM.NavehE. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 175–199.
33.
NisbettR. (2010). The geography of thought: How Asians and westerners think differently… and why: New York: Simon & Schuster.
34.
O’MahonyS.BechkyB. A. (2008). Boundary organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 422–459.
35.
PengK.NisbettR. (1999). Culture, dialectics and reasoning about contradictions. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
36.
Ping LiP. (2014). The unique value of yin-yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10, 321–332.
37.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organizational theory. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.
38.
PutnamL. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In ThayerL. (Ed.), Organization communications: Emerging perspectives (pp. 151–167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
39.
QuinnR.CameronK. (1988a). Paradox and transformation: A framework for viewing organization and management. In QuinnR.CameronK. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 289–308). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
40.
QuinnR.CameronK. (1988b). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
41.
RaischS.ZimmermanA. (2017). Pathways to ambidexterity: A process perspective on the exploration–exploitation paradox. In SmithW. K.LewisM. W.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
RittelH. W.WebberM. M. (1973). Planning problems are wicked. Polity, 4, 155–169.
43.
RossoB. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies, 35, 551–585.
44.
SchneiderL. (1971). Dialectic in sociology. American Sociological Review, 36, 667–678.
45.
SmithK.BergD. (1987). Paradoxes of group life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
46.
SmithW. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1592–1623.
47.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
48.
TaylorF. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
49.
ThompsonJ. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
50.
TorranceE. P. (1974). The Torrance tests of creative thinking: Technical norms manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
51.
ToubianaM.ZietsmaC. (2016). The Message is on the wall? Emotions, social media and the dynamics of institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal. Published online before printMarch24, 2016, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0208.
52.
TushmanM. L.O’ReillyC. A.III (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
53.
TushmanM.RomanelliE. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In StawB. M.CummingsL. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171–222). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
54.
Van de VenA.PooleM. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In QuinnR.CameronK. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 19–54). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
55.
VinceR.BroussineM. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17, 1–21.
56.
von HippelE. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291–302.
57.
WijenF.AnsariS. (2007). Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: Insights from regime theory. Organization Studies, 28, 1079–1100.
58.
WoodwardJ. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.