Search results

The purpose of this paper is to adopt a paradox lens for dovetailing the human resource management sub-domains of talent management (TM) and diversity management (DM), in the attempt to create closer alignment between the two.

The authors review paradox theory, TM and DM literatures and formulate a paradox that becomes apparent when considering TM and DM simultaneously.

The authors coin this tension as the “exclusion-inclusion paradox,” highlighting that TM and DM reflect contradictory, yet interrelated principles: organizations promote exclusion through a TM architecture that focuses on the identification and development of a few selected employees, while simultaneously, organizations promote inclusion, in the attempt to minimize existing inequalities for traditionally marginalized groups.

Once uncovered, the exclusion-inclusion paradox enables organizational actors to make choices on whether to respond actively or defensively to the paradox. The authors argue for active responses in order to work through the paradox.

This is the first paper adopting a paradox lens in order to interweave the DM literature with TM literature in the attempt to explain how DM and TM constitute contradicting yet interrelated principles.

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

This study explores the potential of paradox theory as a novel theoretical lens to investigate persistent and interdependent tensions in supply chains. It is based on a critical literature review focusing on paradoxes observed within complex supply chains in dynamic business environments, including the articles selected for this special issue, “Environmental Dynamism and Supply Chain Complexity: Managing the Paradoxes.”

This study introduces the key concepts and themes of the paradox theory literature and possible methodological approaches to studying paradoxes in supply chains. Through a literature review, this study also reflects on the current state of paradox research in the field of operations and supply chain management (OSCM) and proposes future research questions.

The application of paradox theory to OSCM research is in its early stages. This paper presents opportunities to explore persistent and interdependent tensions in supply chains using paradox theory.

The paper suggests several new research questions that should be translated into more precise propositions. The main implication for research is a call to focus attention on how and why a paradox perspective can help supply chain researchers view complex supply chain problems with fresh eyes.

The study provides the first critical review of paradoxical tensions in OSCM research. While the papers in this special issue contribute significantly to a better understanding of these issues, there is still significant potential for understanding how to respond to paradoxes in supply chains.

A surface view of monotheistic or “Western” religions might lead some to infer a singularity to truth that is inconsistent with paradoxical thinking. The author explores a key Biblical narrative common to both Judaism and Christianity – the story of origins that unfolds in the Garden of Eden. The author posits that the foundations of those belief systems, and particularly those of Christian theology, are paradoxical as evidenced in their historic texts (i.e., the Old and New Testaments of the Bible). A foundational paradox of an “ought versus is” (ideal vs. actual) tension that underlies or intertwines in knot-like fashion with other paradoxes is identified in ways that account for a current world view marked by temporality (in tension with eternality) and becoming (in tension with being). These tensions are made salient as humans continually work toward ideals that seem always just out of reach. Paradox conceptualization is also expanded to propose the notion of mutual embeddedness rather than mutual exclusivity of opposites. Implications for organizational paradoxes are explicated, along with directions for future research based on novel insights provided by the juxtaposition of religion and paradox.

Scholars increasingly depict hybridity as pervasive across organizations. The authors offer insight about how paradox theory informs and expands this approach to hybridity. To do so, the authors do a deeper dive into paradox theory, comparing and contrasting a dynamic equilibrium approach with a permanent dialectics approach. Integrating these two approaches offers paradox theory insights that can enrich and expand hybridity scholarship. The authors offer suggestions for how paradox theory can help develop a future research agenda for organizational hybridity.

The study aims to identify the central paradoxical tensions existing in developing resilience in organisations. The main thrust of this study is to develop a thorough understanding of diverse conflicting tensions in building resilience and develop the possible strategies to surmount these tensions.

Using the case study approach, the study applied theory-elaboration strategy as this study is based on well-established literature from both digitalisation and resilience. The study uses the paradox theory lens in a case study to reconcile both theories with contextual idiosyncrasies.

The paradox theory lens provides perspectives to understand tensions during resilience development and the role of digital transformation in this process. It assesses the potential solutions for surmounting tensions in resilient operations. The mapping of workable solutions with different paradoxes and propositions has been proposed for future empirical research.

The study suggests that practitioners should not consider resilience and sustainability as mutually exclusive; instead, managers must embrace ongoing tensions to bring solutions to address these two essential organisational priorities.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first empirical study that applies paradox theory to understand how an organisation can build resilience while confronting several paradoxes. The study findings support that resilience practices can move in tandem with environmental sustainability goals rather than being usually mutually exclusive.

The objective of this paper is to explain the conceptual framework of paradox.

The paper adopts a theoretical approach. It outlines marketing's current and limited interest in the notion of paradox and highlights the difference between a classic paradox, the tension between transactional and relational marketing, and the Contemporary Marketing Practice (CMP) research program.

A future research agenda for paradox and marketing is speculated on, addressing issues such as likely domains for exploration, methodology, as well as the type of organizational structures and marketing leadership required. Finally, there is reflection on how paradox engineers a strong bridge between theory and practice.

The paper reveals useful information on paradox and marketing.

The integration of industry 4.0 has become a priority for many organizations. However, not all organizations are suitable and capable of implementing industry 4.0 because it requires a dynamic and flexible implementation strategy. The implementation of industry 4.0 often involves overcoming several tensions between internal and external stakeholders. This paper aims to explore the paradoxical tensions that arise for health-care organizations when integrating industry 4.0. Moreover, it discusses how a paradox lens can support the conceptualization and proposes techniques for handling tensions during the integration of industry 4.0.

This qualitative and in-depth study draws upon 32 semi-structured interviews. The empirical case concerns how two health-care organizations handle paradoxical tensions during the integration of industry 4.0.

The exploration resulted in six recurring technology tensions: technology invention (modularized design vs. flexible design), technology collaboration (automation vs. human augmentation), technology-driven patient experience (control vs. autonomy), technology uncertainty (short-term experimentation vs. long-term planning), technology invention and diffusion through collaborative efforts among stakeholders (selective vs. intensive collaboration) and technological innovation (market maintenance vs. disruption).

A paradox theory-informed conceptual model is proposed for how to handle tensions during the integration of industry 4.0. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to introduce paradox theory for quality management, including lean and Six Sigma.

The purpose of this paper is to explore different types of packaging paradoxes and the reasons for their existence in food supply chains.

The research uses a multiple case study approach with rich empirical data from seven leading companies in Swedish food supply chains. The research uses coding and a paradox theory lens to analyse packaging paradoxes, both within and between companies in a supply chain.

The paper provides a novel theoretical lens which uses comprehensive empirical data to identify and categorise four types of packaging paradoxes on two system levels in food supply chains. It presents detailed descriptions of, and underlying reasons for, the paradoxes. It also discusses strategies required to manage packaging paradoxes.

Future research should confirm and extend the findings in this study by incorporating data from companies in other countries. It should cover the importance of paradoxes, their impact on company performance and innovation, and how different paradoxes are related to each other. It should also investigate strategies to manage paradoxes further.

The findings should help companies acknowledge and identify management principles for packaging paradoxes in food supply chains.

It is the first study which systematically explores packaging paradoxes in food supply chains. The study offers a new approach to understand the complexity of packaging decisions in food supply chains. It contributes to the packaging logistics literature by extending theoretical knowledge about conflicts of interest related to packaging. The management discussion offers initial insights into management of packaging paradoxes and directions for future research.

The purpose of this paper is to reframe the debate about the tension between management control and employee empowerment by drawing on a theory of paradox. Reframing the problem in this way draws attention to the variety of ways in which organisations can attend to both control and empowerment simultaneously.

The authors undertake a conceptual examination of the relationship between empowerment and control using a paradox theory lens. First, the authors bring together two dimensions of empowerment – structural empowerment and psychological empowerment – and combine them to produce three new empowerment “scenarios”: illusory empowerment, obstructed empowerment and authentic empowerment. For each of these three scenarios, the central tenets of paradox theory are applied in order to explain the nature of the paradoxical tension, anticipated behavioural responses and the resulting challenges for ongoing management control.

The authors find that neither structural nor psychological empowerment alone can account for variation in behavioural responses to management control. The conceptual analysis highlights the interplay of socio-ideological control and systems of accountability in generating psychological empowerment and demonstrates that this does not come at a cost to management control but instead results in a reduction in the scale and scope of ongoing challenges.

This paper contributes a new theoretical perspective on the classic problem of tension between management control and employee empowerment. Rather than positioning control and empowerment either as a managerial choice or dialectic, the authors identify three different ways in which organisations can engage with both paradoxical elements simultaneously.