Call for Papers

While new to organizational theory, the roots of paradox theory emerged over 2500 years ago. Ancient Greek’s rich philosophical and cultural contributions serve as one primary source. Greek philosophers like Heraclitus and Zeno, through their paradoxical teachings, laid the groundwork for critical thinking, questioning norms and ultimately creativity and innovation.
 
In the past few decades, a growing community of organizational and management researchers have returned to these ancient roots and deepened the understanding of how embracing organizational paradoxes – defined as persistent contradictions between interdependent elements (Smith & Lewis, 2011; Schad et al., 2016) – can help organizations navigate today’s complex world (Schad et al., 2016; Putnam et al., 2016). Scholars find that organizations and their members can draw on paradox to inspire creativity and innovation by, for example, simultaneously exploring and exploiting (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), pursuing social and ecological missions alongside economic objectives (Hahn et al., 2018), and creating synergies between collective and individual goals (Gotsi et al., 2010).
 
Research finds that adopting paradoxical frames can enhance individual creativity (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011) and assist in managing the tensions inherent in creative endeavors (Andriopoulos, 2003; Miron-Spektor & Erez, 2017). Embracing paradox enables actors to take leadership roles in developing creative both/and solutions for organizational tensions and increase strategic agility (Lewis et al., 2014).
 
In this sub-theme, we put paradox and creativity in the center and explore how these ideas shed new insight onto the most pressing challenges and questions in society and organizational research. How can organizations unleash the creative potential of paradox, nurturing paradoxes’ virtuous cycles of creativity and innovation instead of being trapped in vicious cycles, feeling paralyzed, stuck and limited (Lewis, 2000)? Under which circumstances are defensive either/or choices the better alternative (Berti & Pina e Cunha, 2022)? And how can contradictory approaches be integrated in a repertoire of creative, organizational responses to paradoxical tensions? We investigate these and other questions against some of the most pressing challenges and mega trends of our time: sustainability, digitization and globalization.
 
Sustainability challenges include climate change, global health and global poverty – all of which confront organizations with conflicting demands that require creative, disruptive and innovative solutions. Paradox research has advanced the understanding of how organizations can turn persistent tensions among economic, ecological, and social pressures into synergies (Smith & Besharov, 2019; van der Byl et al., 2020). Yet, science on climate change and statistics on poverty suggest that responses to sustainability tensions need to be more effective at the societal level. Despite few exceptions (Carmine & De Marchi, 2022; Jarzabkowski et al., 2022), paradox research still says little about how virtuous cycles can scale sustainability. Furthermore, if sustainability tensions persist over time, we need to better understand how these tensions can be managed in the long-term and in an ethical way (Albertsen et al., 2024). A focus on unleashing the creative potential of paradox for sustainability offers several new questions such as but not limited to:

• How can we spark creative solutions to sustainability paradoxes across levels?

• How can organizational members engage in creative, paradoxical thinking for sustainability?

• How can education be designed to enhance the ability of future leaders to navigate and resolve paradoxes in sustainability?

 
New technological developments unfolding with rapid digitization of industries confront organizations with new challenges and opportunities that raise multiple tensions. For instance, advancing robotics and AI create tensions between AI and human decision-making (Nishant et al., 2024) and between automation and augmentation (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021) – hence require creative, paradoxical and moral solutions for handling of technology in organizations (Moser et al., 2022). Platform economics and the rise of algorithms and big data disrupt entire industries and create new power tensions between tech firms, governments, and consumers (Zuboff, 2015). Communication technologies can paradoxically both empower consumers and make them more vulnerable (Yap et al., 2021). Overall, technologies are inherently paradoxical, coming with a duality where they provide both agency and structure for organizations (Orlikowski, 1992). A paradox lens to digitization can uncover creative solutions to navigating these and other tensions that technologies create for societies, industries, organizations and individuals. A focus on unleashing the creative potential of paradox against the background of digitization offers several new questions such as but not limited to:

• How can a paradox lens further knowledge on technology and digitization of organizations?

• How do paradox responses translate to the digital space?

• How do digital technologies impact the social construction of paradox inside organizations?

• How can AI enhance creative, paradoxical problem-solving processes?

 
Globalization of industries and enterprises drive paradoxical tensions to the macro level. On this level, paradoxes exceed the boundaries of organizations, spanning entire interorganizational systems, such as global supply chains (Schrage & Rasche, 2022; Xiao et al., 2019) or disaster relief systems (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Bednarek & Smith, 2023). Addressing paradox in inter-organizational dynamics at the macro level is especially challenging as it requires integration of different institutional contexts (Schrage and Rasche, 2022) and systems (Schad & Bansal, 2018). Researching paradox at this level requires scholars to apply creative techniques zooming in and out across organizational boundaries (Jarzabkowski et al., 2019). At the same time, globalization is not reducible to homogenization (Beck, 2006). Disruptive events in this decade – such as COVID-19 or the Russian war on Ukraine – are the result of complex dynamics of globalization and localization. A focus on unleashing the creative potential of paradox against the background of globalization offers several new questions such as but not limited to:

• How does paradox unfold in globalized contexts such as global supply chains or MNEs?

• What are paradoxical dynamics between globalization and localization?

• How can different conceptions of paradox from around the globe inform paradox theory?

Beyond this, we continue to welcome other papers framed with paradox theory to expand and enhance our conversations.
 

References

• Albertsen, R.R., Ansari, S.S., Heucher, K., Krautzberger, M., Langley, A., Reinecke, P. C., Slawinski, N., & Vaara, E. (2024): “Strategizing Together for a Better World: Institutional, Paradox and Practice Theories in Conversation.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 33 (2), 115–130.

• Andriopoulos, C. (2003): “Six paradoxes in managing creativity: An embracing act.” Long Range Planning, 36 (4), 375–388.
• Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2009): “Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation.” Organization Science, 20 (4), 696–717.
• Beck, U. (2006): The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
• Bednarek, R., & Smith, W.K. (2024): “‘What may be’: Inspiration from Mary Parker Follett for paradox theory.” Strategic Organization, 22 (3), 582–596.
• Berti, M., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2023): “Paradox, Dialectics or Trade-Offs? A Double Loop Model of Paradox.” Journal of Management Studies, 60 (4), 861–888.
• Carmine, S., & De Marchi, V. (2022): “Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics, 184, 139–158.
• Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A.E. (2010): “Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation.” Human Relations, 63(6), 781–805.
• Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018): “A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects.” Journal of Business Ethics, 148 (2), 235–248.
• Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2019): “Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge.” Strategic Organization, 17 (1), 120–132.
• Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2022): “Enabling Rapid Financial Response to Disasters: Knotting and Reknotting Multiple Paradoxes in Interorganizational Systems.” Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1477–1506.
• Lewis, M.W. (2000): “Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide.” Academy of Management Review, 25 (4), 760–776.
• Lewis, M.W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W.K. (2014): “Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility.” California Management Review, 56 (3), 58–77.
• Miron-Spektor, E., & Erez, M. (2017): “Looking at Creativity through a Paradox Lens: Deeper Understanding and New Insights.” In: W.K. Smith, M.W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski & A. Langley (eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 434–451.
• Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011): “Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116 (2), 229–240.
• Moser, C., den Hond, F., & Lindebaum, D. (2022): “Morality in the age of artificially intelligent algorithms.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21 (1), 139–155.
• Nishant, R., Schneckenberg, D., & Ravishankar, M. (2024): “The formal rationality of artificial intelligence-based algorithms and the problem of bias.” Journal of Information Technology, 39 (1), 19–40.
• Orlikowski, W.J. (1992): “The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations.” Organization Science, 3 (3), 398–427.
• Putnam, L.L., Fairhurst, G.T., & Banghart, S. (2016): “Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach.” Academy of Management Annals, 10 (1), 65–171.
• Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018): “Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research.” Journal of Management Studies, 55 (8), 1490–1506.
• Schad, J., Lewis, M.W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W.K. (2016): “Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward.” Academy of Management Annals, 10 (1), 5–64.
• Schrage, S., & Rasche, A. (2022): “Inter-Organizational Paradox Management: How national business systems affect responses to paradox along a global value chain.” Organization Studies, 43(4), 547–571.
• Smith, W.K., & Besharov, M.L. (2019): “Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64 (1), 1–44.
• Smith, W.K., & Lewis, M.W. (2011): “Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing.” Academy of Management Review, 36 (2), 381–403.
• Van der Byl, C., Slawinski, N., & Hahn, T. (2020): “Responsible management of sustainability tensions: A paradoxical approach to grand challenges.” In: O. Laasch, R. Suddaby, R. Freeman & D. Jamali (eds.): Research Handbook of Responsible Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 438–452.
• Xiao, C., Wilhelm, M., van der Vaart, T., & Van Donk, D.P. (2019): “Inside the buying firm: Exploring responses to paradoxical tensions in sustainable supply chain management.” Journal of Supply Chain Management, 55 (1), 3–20.
• Yap, S.F., Xu, Y., & Tan, L. (2021): “Coping with crisis: The paradox of technology and consumer vulnerability.” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45 (6), 1239–1257.
• Zuboff, S. (2015): “Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization.” Journal of Information Technology, 30 (1), 75–89.
•