International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.

21, 143–161 (2019)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12201

On the Use of Paradox for Generating

Theoretical Contributions in Management
and Organization Research
Bart De Keyser,1 Alain Guiette1 and Koen Vandenbempt1,2
1
Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000,
Antwerpen, Belgium 2 Antwerp Management School, Boogkeers 5, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium
Corresponding author email: bart.dekeyser@uantwerpen.be

Although research relating to paradox has burgeoned throughout the past decades, how
paradox has been used in generating theoretical contributions remains largely tacit.
Hinging on the systematic analysis of 476 publications, this literature review uncovers
how scholars have leveraged paradox in demarcating theoretical contributions in the
area of management and organization research. First, scholars can make use of paradox
as a means to theorize, adding to the core conceptual conversation on paradox. Second,
scholars can make use of paradox as a means to understand or advance insight on
particular phenomena, drawing from paradox’s conceptual knowledge to push forth
discussions or debates in other strands of the management and organization field. Fi-
nally, scholars can make use of paradox as a way to verbalize something puzzling or
surprising, supporting how readers are to appreciate or make sense of theoretical contri-
butions advanced. Denoting approaches identified as highly complementary, this paper
offers explicit handholds for academics to develop theoretical contributions through
paradox, supporting the consolidation and further elevation of scholarly impact for the
paradox community as such.

Introduction (Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015), and leadership

Paradox is a curious thing. Although marking the
surprising or seemingly illogical (Lewis 2000; Poole
and Van de Ven 1989), our reality seems rife with
it: how organizations operate has been repeatedly ar-
gued as being more bound by contradiction than by
rational logics (Ashcraft and Trethewey 2004; Gaim
et al. 2018). Maybe even more curious than paradox’s
widespread manifestation, is its incitation of insight
(Putnam et al. 2016): scanning the area of manage-
ment and organization research, it seems that para-
dox has paved the way for progress, giving forth a
wide plethora of theoretical contributions in fields
such as change management (Luscher and Lewis
2008), innovation management (Sheep et al. 2017),
organizational identity (Ashforth and Reingen 2014),
sensemaking (Hahn et al. 2014), decision-making
(Denison et al. 1995).
While significant attention has been spent on the
scholarly insights that paradox scholars have pro-
duced – see, for example, recent reviews by Putnam
et al. (2016), Schad et al. (2016), or the recently pub-
lished Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox
by Smith et al. (2017b) – , how paradox has been
leveraged to generate such scholarly insight has been
little accounted for: how are we to understand the dif-
ferent ways in which paradox has been used in the
development of theoretical contributions for manage-
ment and organization research? Given that editors
have repeatedly flagged a paper’s contribution as the
element most crucial for the successful dissemina-
tion of insights proponed (Delbridge and Fiss 2013;
LePine and Wilcox-King 2010; Rindova 2011; Rynes
2002), we argue acumen on how paradox can aid


C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
144
establishing meaningful theoretical contributions to
be of vital significance for the ongoing edification and
thriving of the community as such (Cunha and Putnam
2019; Schad et al. 2019). In addition, as several au-
thors have hackled the very width of paradox-related
research to obscure the community’s common ground
(Cunha and Putnam 2019; Engeström and Sannino
2011; Smith and Lewis 2011), we assert that a liter-
ature review that focuses on the way in which the-
oretical contributions are delineated can help schol-
ars to gain clearer understanding of how different
research streams are conceptually interrelated – im-
proving communal appreciation for paradox’s diverse
academic potential (Schad and Bansal 2018).
This literature review consolidates paradox’s schol-
arly impact by mapping out the complementary ways
in which paradox has been used for the creation of
theoretical contributions. By showing the modalities
of three main approaches present in extant manage-
ment and organization research, this paper offers the
scholarly community explicit handholds to work with
paradox in the act of crafting theoretical contribu-
tions. First, scholars can make use of paradox as
a means to theorize, adding to the core conceptual
conversation on paradox. Second, scholars can make
use of paradox as a means to understand or advance
particular phenomena, drawing from the conceptual
knowledge as established by the first category to push
forth discussions or debates in other research strands
of the management and organization field. Finally,
scholars can make use of paradox as a way of verbal-
izing something puzzling or surprising, supporting
how readers are to appreciate or make sense of theo-
retical contributions advanced.
In what follows, we briefly delineate paradox and
the notion of theoretical contributions conceptually,
after which we develop the methodology used in the
review process. Next, we present the main findings of
our analysis by outlining the modalities of the three
main ways in which paradox has been used for the
making of theoretical contributions. We proceed by
discussing the varying intensity in which approaches
hinge on paradox, and reflect on the complementarity
of approaches surfaced. We conclude by outlining
tracks for future research.
Conceptual background
On paradox
To come to terms with a literature review on the use
of paradox, one conceptual question naturally arises:

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
how are we to understand paradox? At present, work
on paradox seems to increasingly comply on three key
features. First, paradox denotes a contradiction, or a
state of being oppositional to one another (Davis et al.
1997; Ford and Backoff 1988; Poole and Van de Ven
1989; Smith and Lewis 2011). Second, this contradic-
tion acts up between interdependent elements, or el-
ements that define one another to the extent that they
are ‘ontologically inseparable’ (Schad et al. 2016,
p. 7). Third, this contradiction between interdepen-
dent elements is not easily resolved, but persists over
time (Putnam et al. 2016). Taken together, these three
features outline paradox’s conceptual core, differenti-
ating paradox from related terms such as duality, du-
alism, dialectics, contradiction, and tension (Putnam
et al. 2016; Schad et al. 2016). For example, in its
persistence of a contradictory situation has paradox
been noted as setting itself apart from the synthesizing
tenure as advanced by dialectics; in its emphasis on
interrelated oppositional elements has it been noted
to differ from the more partitioned tenets of duality
(Schad et al. 2016). In this way, paradox has come to
denote a specific conceptual sphere that stands dis-
tinct from related conceptual demarcations. In the
remainder of this paper, we will hold true to the def-
inition of paradox as delineated concisely by Schad
et al. (2016): ‘a persistent contradiction between in-
terdependent elements’ (p. 6).
On theoretical contributions and their craft
While many editors have proclaimed theoretical con-
tributions to be amongst the most essential aspects
of any paper considered, several of these scholars
have also marked the elusiveness of pinpointing just
what a theoretical contribution precisely is (Bergh
2003; Corley and Gioia 2011; Cornelissen and Du-
rand 2014; Gioia and Pitre 1990; Rindova 2011;
Rynes 2002; Whetten 1989). One of the first ma-
jor advances in this regard consists of the work by
Davis (1971), who argued for additions to theory to
be considered meaningful not necessarily when they
are true, but when they are interesting – an argument
later picked up by scholars such as Rynes (2002) and
Kilduff (2006). Further systematizing this notion of
delivering insights of interest, Whetten (1989, p. 490)
explicitly demarcated what a theoretical contribution
consists of in general terms, moving away from trea-
tises that made use of ‘terms and concepts that are
difficult to incorporate into everyday communication
with authors and reviewers’ (e.g. Dubin 1978; Gergen
1982). Arguing valid theories to propose an answer
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
to the questions of what, how, why, who, where, and
when, Whetten (1989) contended for a publication
to offer a theoretical contribution if it improved our
understanding of the theory in question on these con-
stitutional elements. Corley and Gioia (2011) later
streamlined this train of thought by identifying the-
oretical contributions as ‘resting on the ability to
provide original insight into a phenomenon by ad-
vancing knowledge in a way that is deemed to have
utility or usefulness for some purpose’ (p. 15). This
view on theoretical contributions was further consol-
idated by Cornelissen and Durand (2014), who have
come to hold true to the term as ‘scholarly insight
that creates, refines, or extends management theory’
(p. 995). Building on this conceptual grounding, au-
thors have increasingly come to consider how the-
oretical contributions are developed (Ashford 2013;
Corley and Schinoff 2017; Cornelissen and Durand
2014; Rindova 2011). However, while the importance
of such considerations has been repeatedly noted, con-
crete advances on the explicit identification of ap-
proaches have been few to materialize. ‘Regardless
of the numerous articles and editorial commentaries
defining and describing it, the practice of making a
theoretical contribution continues to be shrouded in
mystery’ (Corley and Schinoff 2017, p. 7; emphasis
added). It is from this vein of inquiry that this paper
picks up, mapping out how scholars have used para-
dox to develop theoretical contributions in the field
of management and organization research.
Methodology
This literature review has been carried out by means
of a systematic review procedure (Jesson et al. 2011;
Tranfield et al. 2003; Van de Ven 2007). In what
follows, we will elaborate on the consecutive steps of
data collection and data analysis.
Data collection
To identify articles relevant to the outset as delineated
by our research question, we conducted a Boolean
search in the Web of ScienceTM platform. To allow
for semantic variation, we filed searches through use
of the asterisk (*) symbol, leading up to a search of
publications in the ‘management’ or ‘business’ area
containing the term ‘paradox*’ in either title, abstract,
or keywords. To work solely with scholarly validated
knowledge, we filtered our results to include only
full-length articles published in academic journals

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
145
(Podsakoff et al. 2005; Ramos-Rodrı́guez and Ruı́z-
Navarro 2004). Hence, sources such as book chapters,
conference proceedings, editorials, or commentary
essays where not taken into account. Next, sample pa-
pers were limited to those being published in journals
that put forth a general management and organization
orientation spanning all levels of analysis, and had
accrued an impact factor of 2 or higher – making us
thus focus on outlets ranking in the top 35% of the
field envisioned (Gann 2017). In terms of publication
date, no bottom limit was construed, with articles be-
ing considered up to the date of writing (December
2018), including articles in press. This search led to
the identification of 476 publications relevant for our
study (see Table 1).
Considering the sheer number of publications that
address some form of paradox in the field of manage-
ment and organization, we acknowledge our research
sample to be, inevitably, incomplete. Yet, as the goal
of our literature review was not to catalogue every
work that refers to paradox, but to account for lead-
ing ways of how paradox is currently used in extant
literature, we argue the identified 476 articles to rep-
resent a sufficient basis for literature analysis. This
being said, we acknowledge that sampling alterations
might represent interesting tracks for further validat-
ing the findings of this literature review.
Data analysis
To allow for systematic analysis, articles were first
read in full by the researchers involved and pro-
cessed analogously to the example as presented in
Appendix S1. While each researcher took care of ap-
proximately half of the total number of publications
independently, significant care was invested to ensure
a reliable analysis process, this by means of discrep-
ancy debate and sample re-coding. In case of doubts
regarding article analysis, discussions were raised to
resolve discordances, with researchers both reading
the article in question and engaging in constructive
dialogue. In addition, throughout the process of anal-
ysis, a random sample of 50 publications were revis-
ited, with constructive debate again aiming to resolve
any potential discrepancies identified for the review
sample in general. Next, we tried to demarcate similar
patterns of generating the theoretical contribution dis-
played: in what ways did publications leverage para-
dox to make theoretical contributions in the field of
management and organizational research? Consec-
utively filtering publications according to alternate
146 B. De Keyser et al.

Table 1. Overview of selected journals and special issues

Full title Journal impact factor (2017) Number of articles used in literature review

Academy of Management Annals 9.281 3

Academy of Management Review 8.855 32
Journal of Management 8.080 18
Academy of Management Journal 6.700 41
International Journal of Management Reviews 6.489 6
Administrative Science Quarterly 5.878 23
Strategic Management Journal 5.482 38
Journal of Management Studies 5.329 26
Management Science 3.544 39
Long Range Planning 3.221 26
Organization Studies 3.133 54
British Journal of Management 3.059 16
Human Relations 3.043 46
Organization Science 3.027 54
Organization 2.701 28
European Management Journal 2.369 15
Strategic Organization 2.225 11
Total 476

sets of approaches proposed, we iteratively grouped
sample publications in different ways (Bryman and
Burgess 1994; Pratt 2009). This iterative process of
pattern investigation (Tranfield et al. 2003) continued
until groupings identified displayed relatively high
levels of intra-group homogeneity and low levels of
inter-group homogeneity. This process resulted in the
identification of three primary ways through which
paradox was used to make theoretical contributions,
for which seven subgroups were further demarcated.
Appendix S2 portrays a full list of articles reviewed.
Results: Setting out a typology of
contributing through paradox
In this section, we will elaborate on the three ap-
proaches identified for making use of paradox for the
generation of theoretical contributions (see Figure 1).
In the first approach, paradox is leveraged as a way
of theorizing: how can managerial scholars and
practitioners push extant cognitive boundaries into
the realm of the ambiguous, altering their conception
of organizational reality as a result? By solidifying
a conceptual basis, publications constituted through
the use of paradox as a means of theorizing make
up what is generally referred to as the core scholarly
conversation on paradox. In the second approach,
this body of knowledge is used to understand and
advance theoretical discussions in the broader area of
management and organization research: publications
within this group hinge on the insights of paradox’s
body of knowledge to drive an improved conceptu-
alization of various other strands of theory. Finally,
publications in the third approach use paradox as
a means of verbalizing phenomena to be puzzling
or surprising: how can paradox aid in transferring
some sense in an area that is complex and evasive?
Marked by explorative research in a wide variety
of management fields, this approach stimulates
the continuous re-appraisal of extant convictions,
setting out stepping stones for a more nuanced
understanding of various organizational phenomena.
Drilling down on the modalities of each approach,
we will highlight sequentially how publications enact
a different way of generating theoretical contributions
in the field of management and organization research
through paradox.
Approach 1: Using paradox to theorize
A first approach identified is to leverage paradox as a
means to theorize about organizational reality’s onto-
logical essence. Demarcated by a propensity for con-
ceptualization, publications in this group primarily
advance contributions by tackling questions relevant
to the conversation’s theoretical fundamentals: how
can we construct a school of thought from paradox,
advancing equivocality and ambiguity as enablers
rather than inhibitors of understanding? Establishing
paradox as a paradigm an sich, this approach is of-
ten reflected in what are now considered the paradox
conversation’s foundational papers (e.g. Lewis 2000;
Lewis and Grimes 1999; Poole and Van de Ven 1989;


C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
Figure 1. Using paradox for generating theoretical contributions in management and organization research
Quinn and Cameron 1988; Smith and Lewis 2011),
making up what has traditionally been proclaimed as
the main literature on paradox (Fairhurst et al. 2016;
Putnam et al. 2016; Schad et al. 2016). As publica-
tions are constituted essentially around the theoretical
edification of equivocality, references to paradox are
to be found throughout the entire textual body, start-
ing from introduction and conceptual background to
discussion and conclusion (e.g. Knight and Paroutis
2017; Luscher et al. 2006; Westenholz 1993).
In illustration, the publication by Lewis (2000) can
be upheld as prototypical to the use of paradox as a
means to theorize: as the author advances a frame-
work that clarifies the nature of paradoxical tensions
and outlines strategies for identification, Lewis (2000)
extensively resorts to paradox as a conceptual bear-
ing, leveraging paradox to push the boundaries of the
organizationally controversial. Consolidating insights
on paradox as a paradigm, the publication by Lewis
(2000) contributes by setting out a theoretical realm
to draw from, setting the stage for other research to
ensue. In what follows, we will mark the different sub-
approaches through which we found publications to
use paradox as a means to theorize: by infusing order
in the equivocality of organizational reality and by
drawing blueprints for future research.
Infusing order in the equivocality of organiza-
tional reality. By delineating explorative proposi-
tions (e.g. Ofori-Dankwa and Julian 2004) and theo-
retical frameworks (e.g. Smith and Lewis 2011), many
publications that used paradox as a way of theorizing
were found to develop highly logical structures for
scholars to reflect on (e.g. Lewis 2000; Poole and

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
147
Van de Ven 1989): as they retained a strict focus on
the core knowledge propagation of paradox an sich,
publications within the first category demarcated the
paradox literature’s conceptual boundaries – offering
perspective on what resorts inside and what resorts
outside these boundaries (Gioia and Pitre 1990). By
centralizing paradox as paradigmatic outset, several
scholars were found to infuse a sense of order and di-
rection into a research subject that appears inherently
ambiguous and unruly (e.g. Cameron 1986; Hargrave
and Van de Ven 2017). While this might seem self-
evident at first given the nature of theorization (Gioia
and Pitre 1990), we argue it not to be so: as contrib-
utors faced the challenge of rationalizing the seem-
ingly arational (Davidson 1990), we expected to ac-
count for many a philosophical dissertation. Instead,
we were surprised to discover a high level of structure
and order in publications, cutting up the arationality
of paradox into frameworks of surprising digestibil-
ity. Smith and Lewis (2011) offer a clear example
of this. Setting out a categorization of organizational
paradoxes along four main dimensions (i.e. learning,
belonging, performing, and organizing), Smith and
Lewis (2011) impregnate clear order into a field of
wide diversity. In addition, by drawing a hierarchical
pattern of paradox-related organizing in the contem-
porary firm, the authors apply high levels of rational
calculus to a field they themselves hint at as seem-
ingly ‘irrational’ (p. 386). Another example of this
act of structuring can be found in the publication by
Hargrave and Van de Ven (2017). Drawing forth a pro-
cessual model of paradox and dialectics that is highly
logical in its conception, the authors integrate two
terms on contradictions within a structured template
148
of theorization. Providing a time-related typology of
how authors are to grasp the intricacies as implicated
by both the dialectical and paradox perspective, Har-
grave and Van de Ven (2017) offer deliberate frame-
works for making sense of organizational contradic-
tions as they are. Hence, while we found all authors
that use paradox as a means to theorize to be most
reflexive of the complexities of contradictions dealt
with, we noted this doesn’t bar them from conceptual-
izing a sense of order and systematization on the no-
tion of paradox. By setting up rational scaffolding in a
field of arational tendencies, authors that use paradox
as a means to theorize offer structure and backbone
for research to develop from – advancing a body of
knowledge that can further be built on for theoretical
contributions that reflect on our understanding of the
business world in concreto.
Drawing blueprints for future research. In addition
to this act of structuring, we found several authors that
use paradox as a means of theorizing to not only con-
tribute by delivering solid frameworks of their own,
but by providing the foundations for others to do so as
well. In this regard, publications were often found to
utilize paradox beyond the mere delineation of useful
theory: in many instances, they set out step-by-step
demarcations for how useful theory could be con-
stituted further on (e.g. Jarzabkowski et al. 2013).
Important to note is that this demarcation of founda-
tions for future publications to build upon surpassed
the traditional future track delineation quite signifi-
cantly: rather than offering but a passing scent of the
possible dish, many publications appeared to advance
the recipe to cook the actual broth. Smith and Tracey
(2016) offer a helpful illustration of this: in their com-
parative study on institutional complexity and para-
dox theory, Smith and Tracey (2016) do not focus on
the creation of new theoretical models. Rather, by lay-
ing bare the very assumptions that underlie the fields
of institutional complexity and paradox theory, the au-
thors constitute fertile ground for other publications to
sprout from. Another example can be found in Lewis
and Kelemen (2002). Untangling organization theory
from a state of ‘polarization’ (p. 251), Lewis and Kele-
men (2002) constitute the stage for metaparadigm in-
quiry to build upon. Or, consider the publication by
Miron-Spektor et al. (2018): discerning extant the-
ory on paradox as focusing primarily on levels of
analysis that are mostly geared towards higher eche-
lons of organization (i.e. management level or organi-
zational level in general), the authors re-conceptualize
paradox from a micro-foundational outset. By doing

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
so, Miron-Spektor et al. (2018) not only render ex-
plicit some of the very assumptions on which extant
theoretical research is primarily founded, but also of-
fer the scholarly community a mindset approach that
is highly indicative to tap from. Hence, rather than fo-
cusing solely on the delivery of insightful frameworks
of one’s own, authors that used paradox to theorize
were often found to generate meaningful contribu-
tions by exposing fundamental building blocks for
others to start working with as well: by tackling the
root assumptions of what paradox is in the first place,
scholars laid bare the very ‘cogs and gears’ for others
to develop from.
Approach 2: Using paradox to understand and
advance management and organization theories
In the second category identified, publications lever-
aged paradox as a means to move forward in spe-
cific theories on organizational phenomena: how can
we make use of extant knowledge on paradoxes and
their manifestation, progressing managerial and orga-
nizational knowledge as a result (Ashforth and Rein-
gen 2014; Bednarek et al. 2017; Lado et al. 2006;
Schmitt et al. 2018)? By building on paradox knowl-
edge conceptions for the sake of dynamic understand-
ing, these publications were found to utilize the con-
ceptual acumen on paradox as a tool to proactively
guide the ambiguity inherent in organizational pro-
cesses (e.g. Fiol 2002; Luscher and Lewis 2008). In
line with this pragmatic focus, themes addressed cen-
tered most significantly around subjects related to
adaptation and transformation, and how to achieve
this: primary focus was noted on literature fields
such as innovation (e.g. Gotsi et al. 2010; Jay 2013;
Kodama 2003; Sheep et al. 2017; Tse 2013), organi-
zational interaction (e.g. Le Roy and Fernandez 2015;
Stadtler and Van Wassenhove 2016), change manage-
ment (e.g. Beech et al. 2004; Farjoun 2010; Fiol 2002;
Gilbert 2006; Luscher and Lewis 2008; Schmitt and
Raisch 2013), and decision-making (e.g. Calabretta
et al. 2017; Smith 2014). In publications that used
paradox to understand and advance management and
organization phenomena, applied insights and core
theoretical knowledge were found to be reconnected
reciprocally, contributing through the interaction be-
tween particular phenomena and paradox as a body
of knowledge. In terms of textual discourse, this
resulted in paradox references being mainly advanced
in the literature review and analytical body, bridging
theory to the pragmatic outcome of discussion and
conclusion.
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
By means of example, the publication by Jay (2013)
illustrates this logic well: suggesting that paradoxes
constitute a key resource to affect change, Jay (2013)
builds on the theoretical knowledge of paradox to ad-
vocate a particular way of acting, delineating a con-
tribution that interweaves insights on paradox and
change management in symbiosis. Rather than re-
sorting to paradox as an abstract notion, the author
thus leverages the theory behind the term to achieve
proper advancement in the concrete business realm. In
the remainder of this section, we will set out the spe-
cific sub-approaches identified for publications that
establish contributions by resorting to paradox to un-
derstand and advance management and organization
theories: to reframe management and organization
phenomena, and to solve specific problems of man-
agement and organization phenomena.
Reframing management and organization phenom-
ena. As a first subgroup, we found many publi-
cations to hinge on paradox as a conceptual angle
from which to gain new perspective on particular
phenomena (e.g. Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015;
Dameron and Torset 2014; Johnston and Selsky 2006;
MacLean and MacIntosh 2015). Perusing the conver-
sation in literature strands on management and orga-
nization through the paradox paradigm as established
by scholars of the first category (i.e. that used para-
dox as a means to theorize), many authors in this
category were found to utilize paradox as a means for
reframing the intricate complexities of their respec-
tive theoretical discussions. One example of research
that explicitly adheres to this logic can be found in
the work by Sheep et al. (2017). Inherently address-
ing the theoretical debate regarding the discourse of
innovation, the authors hinge on established paradox
theory to advance new levels of understanding in their
field of inquiry. Another example can be found in the
publication by Dameron and Torset (2014). Aiming
to understand how organizational strategy is consti-
tuted, the authors inherently operate from the concep-
tual background of paradox, analyzing the theoretical
debate they target from a tension-based angle. Im-
portant to note is that for these authors, the paradox
paradigm doesn’t merely represent one of many theo-
retical bases they could have grounded their research
in: it is noted as actively aiding them in the recon-
figuration of the conversation to which they mean to
contribute.
By exploring what strategists say about their strategy
work, we propose a paradox lens on strategy that

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
149
embraces two opposing views on strategic processes.
This allowed us to move past the dichotomies and
oppositions, thereby closing a gap in the literature
on strategy. (Dameron and Torset 2014, p. 316)
Or, consider the work of Farjoun (2010), who called
for a re-appreciation of the theoretical discussion on
organizational stability and change as paradoxical,
rather than merely oppositional:
The view of these imperatives [i.e. stability and
change] as separate and opposing remains domi-
nant in theoretical and empirical research and as a
guide for practice. However, as some have observed,
it has perhaps become too restrictive to capture the
complexity of the subject matter. (p. 203)
By making use of paradox to come to terms with the
organizational phenomena of stability and change,
Farjoun (2010) inherently conjures new levels of un-
derstanding in his respective conversation, levelling
the field for further non-consensual research to build
upon. Hence, by putting to use the conceptual basis
of paradox as a means of interpretation, many schol-
ars were found to leverage highly insightful theoreti-
cal contributions in the management and organization
conversations they inherently addressed – expanding
paradox from a theoretical notion, to a way of con-
ceiving management and organizational phenomena
at large.
Problem-solving tool for management and organiza-
tion phenomena. While we found the majority of
publications in this second category to utilize para-
dox as a way of reframing the complex intricacies of
management and organization phenomena, we also
found some articles to push beyond this level of under-
standing, attributing much of the practical prowess of
contemporary organization to precisely the paradox-
ical state of ambiguity (Cuganesan 2017; Fiol 2002;
Zhang et al. 2015). In these articles, paradox was put
forward as a way to fuel an organizational constitu-
tion that is applicative and solution-based (e.g. Beech
et al. 2004; Jay 2013; Tse 2013) – a catalyst, so to
speak, apt for cranking up progress in organizations
and related theories. For example, in discussing how
to manage conflict amongst strategy-making modes,
Kodama (2003) demarcates the integration of para-
doxical elements as ‘essential for a large corporation
to continue growing’ (p. 265) – propagating para-
dox as a means to advance a given managerial sit-
uation. Another example can be found in the work
by Luscher and Lewis (2008): in their study on orga-
nizational change, the authors build on the dialectic
150
momentum of paradox to achieve a state of sensemak-
ing that stimulates, rather than saps, the energy of a
transformation process. Putting forth four subsequent
rounds of ‘questioning’ (i.e. linear questioning, cir-
cular questioning, reflexive questioning, and strategic
questioning), Luscher and Lewis (2008) advance the
balancing act of paradoxical thinking as the primary
constituent of how to progress notably in a situation of
complex transformation. Note that this doesn’t mean
that articles that used paradox as a problem-solving
tool in management and organization research were
unaware of the complexities faced by organizational
practitioners (Ashforth et al. 2014; Bednarek et al.
2017; Le Roy and Fernandez 2015). Yet, rather than
denoting these complexities as predicaments in ul-
tima, scholars that resorted to paradox as a problem-
solving tool generally proclaimed them as promotors
of organizational improvement – constituting a mes-
sage of hard work that will eventually pay off. ‘Do
these dynamics suggest a vicious circle or a virtu-
ous circle? [ . . . ] We believe that both descriptions
are apt’ (Ashforth and Reingen 2014, p. 507). With
studies portraying equivocality as a challenging yet
surmountable feature of contemporary organizations,
they often lead to theoretical contributions that con-
cretely pinpointed how to manage proactive behavior
(e.g. Beech et al. 2004; Fiol 2002). To exemplify
this recommendatory loop, we cite Gibbs (2009),
who identifies paradox-related processes as one of
the drivers of organizational integration. Relating to a
discourse of consecutive dissolution and reformation,
Gibbs (2009) acclaims for organizations to constitute
a paradox-based process of self-development, eventu-
ally leading to a state of better holistic understanding.
Similar developments can be found in Tse’s (2013)
account on how to achieve strategic innovation. Build-
ing on the insights of case studies at two UK retailers,
Tse (2013) points out that, although refraining from
unidimensional thinking might be difficult, the re-
sults for managerial outcomes are ‘very rewarding’
(p. 693). Hence, by noting a way of sensibly acting
through paradox, we found many publications in the
second category to advance theoretical contributions
that balance the arduousness of the process with the
benefits of the eventual outcome – supporting the act
of overcoming organizational inhibitions.
Approach 3: Using paradox to verbalize something
puzzling
In the final category of publications identified, schol-
ars used paradox predominantly as a rhetorical

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
designation, sharpening the contributions they pro-
poned by the notation of paradoxical tensions be-
ing present in a particular field of inquiry. Note
that this field of inquiry was found to vary sig-
nificantly across publications, with authors focus-
ing on themes as diverse as human resources man-
agement (e.g. Castilla and Benard 2010; Muhlhaus
and Bouwmeester 2016), strategic management (e.g.
Ahearne et al. 2014; Albert et al. 2015), innovation
management (e.g. Miron-Spektor et al. 2011; Perry-
Smith and Mannucci 2017), and change management
(e.g. Garud et al. 2014; Sastry 1997). Publications that
used paradox to verbalize something puzzling were
found to predominantly limit their acknowledgments
of paradox to the opening or closing periphery of
their study (e.g. Delacour and Leca 2017; Eikhof and
Haunschild 2007; Marrone et al. 2007), or to search-
able content, such as title, abstract, or keywords (e.g.
Aram 1989; Ruefli 1990; Shaver 2006; Zhang et al.
2006) – in both cases, paradox seemed primarily uti-
lized for its semantic bearing, aimed at solidifying
the reader’s appreciation of either research objective
or research findings.
The publication by Bernstein (2012) can be under-
stood as exemplary of this logic: marking the im-
pact of transparency on employee performance as
‘paradoxical’, Bernstein (2012) guides his readers’
understanding of findings established by means of a
term as understood in lay discourse – by hinging on
paradox’s semantic connotation, the author leverages
paradox as a way of conveying meaning from au-
thor to readership. In what follows, we will mark the
different ways through which the use of paradox to
verbalize something puzzling added to authors’ the-
oretical contributions: by helping sensemaking of re-
search outset or outcome, by advocating the relevance
of the research purpose, and by creating space for
criticality.
Helping sensemaking of the research outset or out-
come. Scanning the way paradox was represented
in studies of the third group, we found many publica-
tions to raise paradox as a means for placing bound-
aries on what the study was about and how it was
to be understood. By punctuating the phenomenon
of inquiry as paradoxical, publications set out pri-
mary stepping stones for aiding the reader in basic
sensemaking of the contribution the author intended
to make (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991; Weick 1995):
how is one to come to terms with the complexity of the
phenomenon as described? By sensibly propagating
the notion of paradox throughout an argumentation,
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
publications that used paradox as a means of ver-
balization set the stage for deeper understanding of
the phenomenon discussed. Marking the study with
the conceptual denotation of paradox, scholars put
forward points of reference for how one is to navi-
gate throughout the publication’s discourse – offering
some handhold on how to maneuver an obscure and
complex reality. For example, Audia et al. (2000)
use paradox to prime the reader’s notion of potential
downsides of organizational success; Kacperczyk and
Younkin (2017) and Garud et al. (2014) raise the term
to offer conceptual reference for their research on le-
gitimacy; Delacour and Leca (2017), Miron-Spektor
et al. (2011), and Wadhwa et al. (2017) delineate
paradox as a way to grasp the ambiguity present in
innovation and disruption. With references to para-
dox being but sparsely present in the overall textual
discourse of these studies, publications in this cate-
gory were found to use paradox allusion much like
a rhetorical trope, guiding the reader’s basic appre-
hension of the contribution as put forward by means
of semantic priming. In this way, paradox appears to
retain the character of a metaphor (Kovecses 2010;
Oswick et al. 2002): rather than conveying the im-
plications of its theoretical body, it offers some grip
for the reader to come to terms with the study sub-
ject at large. By linking to paradox as a commonly
understood rhetorical term, studies of the third group
shifted tension thinking from literature to rhetoric –
transposing paradox from a way of seeing things to a
way of saying things.
Advocating the relevance of the research purpose.
Related to this semantic priming function, we found
the application of paradox as a means of verbaliza-
tion to often beguile the reader into the sensation of
‘something interesting’ (Davis 1971): by framing the
managerial study in terms of that which is surprising
or puzzling, many scholars seemed to leverage para-
dox for advocating the relevance of the contribution
they were to propone. By means of illustration, let
us focus on the publication by Gander et al. (2007).
Discussing the potential issues that might arise in al-
liance management, Gander et al. (2007) denote the
presence of a rather peculiar situation, one in which
‘resources that are complementary may nonethe-
less be hostile if brought together in one firm: the
exposure of one partner to another may erode the dis-
tinctive properties that make the partnership valuable’
(p. 607). Having set the stage for the further textual
discourse through paradox, the authors then progress
on this tension-related base of understanding. Similar

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
151
examples can be noted in a wide variety of research
fields, ranging from organizational learning (Antona-
copoulou 2001), to information system management
(Brynjolfsson and Hitt 1996), communication (Ko-
vacs and Sharkey 2014), and resource management
(Le Breton-Miller and Miller 2015). Hence, while
publications in this category remain largely mute on
the actual dynamics of the acclaimed paradox, they do
arouse interest in a particular management and orga-
nization phenomenon through paradox verbalization
– hereby expediting the notion of paradox to a surpris-
ingly broad research field. Note that this enticement
was found to be operationalized in both ways: just as
interest could be raised in a particular phenomenon by
punctuating paradoxical outsets, some publications
were found to entice the other way around – delineat-
ing the findings of a particular management study as
a first rung towards the improved conceptual acumen
on paradoxical thinking. The publication by Eikhof
and Haunschild (2007) on the artistic and economic
logic in creative production illustrates this point quite
well. Starting out from an exclusively phenomenon-
based research question (i.e. ‘In what way does the
economization of creative and artistic practices affect
the intrinsic motivation of employees?’ (p. 524)), the
authors gradually come to terms with notions of para-
dox, concluding their contribution with a call for fu-
ture research on how to deal with paradoxical forces in
the creative sector. Similar examples can be found in
Castilla and Benard (2010), Fiegenbaum and Thomas
(1988), and Albert et al. (2015).
Creating space for criticality. Finally, by vocaliz-
ing the notion of paradoxical tensions being present
in a particular field of inquiry, many publications that
adhered to the third approach of using paradox were
found to stack onto the core body of their contri-
bution through the act of ‘unlocking the door’ for
assumption re-valuation. By tagging a specific phe-
nomenon as ‘paradoxical’, we found scholars to of-
ten unhinge standing conjectures of how one is to
understand a particular phenomenon – spurring up
potential for debate and further research, rather than
conclusion. For example, in their study on regional
and interregional isomorphism, Miller et al. (2013)
question extant assumptions in the field by labelling
their findings on signaling as ‘paradoxical’. Muhlhaus
and Bouwmeester (2016) and Littler and Innes (2004)
raise similar critical remarks in the field of employee
wellbeing and managerial downsizing, again alluding
to their findings as ‘paradoxical’. Comparable exam-
ples were discerned in a variety of research fields,
152
ranging from leadership (Guthey and Jackson 2005)
to organizational performance (King and Zeithaml
2001), affiliation management (Cutcher 2014), and
creativity (Thompson et al. 2007). In this regard, sev-
eral studies in the third category advanced paradox as
a way of voicing doubt and seemingly illogical find-
ings to the research community – generating potential
for criticality in their wake.
Discussion
By laying bare the versatile ways in which paradox
can be leveraged for generating theoretical contri-
butions, this paper offers explicit handholds for aca-
demics to craft theoretical contributions through para-
dox, supporting both the consolidation and further
elevation of scholarly impact for paradox. In this dis-
cussion section, we first deliberate upon the different
intensity by which categories make use of paradox to
generate theoretical contributions. Next, these differ-
ences notwithstanding, we denote approaches identi-
fied as highly complementary, rendering them equally
valid for the craft of meaningful scholarly insight. Fi-
nally, we reflect on the possibilities of straddling dif-
ferent approaches, linking the different ways of using
paradox in synergy.
On the intensity of using paradox for the generation
of theoretical contributions
In this first discussion point, we highlight that the
intensity by which paradox is used to generate the-
oretical contributions is not uniformly spread across
the three approaches identified: while articles of the
first category can be noted as resorting most exten-
sively to paradox for the generation of their theo-
retical contribution, articles of the second and third
category gradually trim down on the intensity of
such use.
Scanning over the articles in each of the three ap-
proaches identified, it is notable that the intensity by
which scholars leverage paradox for the generation of
theoretical contributions can be significantly different
(see Figure 2). The first group of articles noted, i.e. ar-
ticles that use paradox to theorize, reflect a set of pub-
lications that strongly adhere to paradox in all parts of
their textual body. By doing so, this group inherently
bolsters the conceptual fundamentals of paradox as
a body of knowledge – a core, so to speak, standing
central to the conversation at large. In the second
category, i.e. articles that use paradox to understand

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
and advance management and organization theories,
this intensity of using paradox for the generation of
theoretical contributions has been somewhat trimmed
down. Operationalizing the core knowledge on para-
dox primarily for the sake of advancing insights in ad-
jacent areas of understanding, publications in this cat-
egory chiefly advance paradox in sections that set the
scene for the management and organization-related
inquiry to further develop from (e.g. literature review
and analytical body). Finally, in the third category, i.e.
publications that use paradox to verbalize something
puzzling, referrals to paradox are the scarcest: hinging
on the semantic implications of paradox rather than
on the term’s theoretical bearings, articles within this
category often limit their annotations of paradox to
searchable content (e.g. title, abstract, or keywords),
utilizing paradox primarily as a beacon for readers
to navigate the article in question. Hence, while all
articles unmistakably make use of paradox for the
generation of theoretical contributions, the extent of
this use differs significantly, spurring the fragmenta-
tion of the academic community into groups that ad-
here either more or less stringently to paradox for the
delineation of a theoretical contribution (Cunha and
Putnam 2019).
On the complementarity of approaches identified
In this second discussion point, we wish to indicate
the equal validity that identified approaches repre-
sent for the act of crafting meaningful theoretical
contributions through paradox. While the intensity
by which approaches make use of paradox has been
noted to differ significantly, we strongly assert that
neither way of using paradox should be regarded as
all-encompassing: as each approach is characterized
by its very own set of perks and predicaments, it is
important that researchers acknowledge clear bound-
aries on what can, and what cannot, be learned from
particular publications.
In our first discussion point, we have highlighted
the three main approaches identified to vary signifi-
cantly in terms of the intensity by which paradox is
used. Yet, this difference in intensity notwithstanding,
we argue that all approaches of using paradox to gen-
erate theoretical contributions have their merits, just
as they each have their particular shortcomings. By
constituting structure in an amorphous research field,
publications that use paradox as a means to theorize
offer a particular perspective on how to conceptualize
paradoxes in an orderly way. Carving order from the
rock, these publications guide our way of sculpting
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions 153

3. Using paradox as a means to

verbalize something puzzling

2. Using paradox as a means

to understand and advance

1. Using paradox Intensity of using paradox

as a means to to make theoretical
theorize contributions

+ -

Figure 2. Categories of leveraging paradox to make a theoretical contribution

insight on paradox – constituting a tacit understand-
ing of what is sensible and what is not. Yet, in doing so,
they also implicitly set standards on how not to think:
by systematically advancing particular ways of mak-
ing sense of paradox as a paradigm, they make us po-
tentially surpass alternative avenues of understanding
(Weick 1995). ‘A way of seeing is a way of not seeing’
(Poggi 1965, p. 284). Publications that use paradox to
understand and advance management and organiza-
tion research, for their part, have the benefit of often
invoking scholarly insights on two different fronts at
once: for the paradox body of knowledge through
which they peer, and for the management and organi-
zation discussion they specifically consider. However,
while we argue the very act of invoking both the bod-
ies of knowledge on paradox and management and
organization to make up much of the prowess of this
approach, we also expect the very same balancing
act to hold specific peril for the ardent researcher. In
aiming to consolidate both grounds, the researcher
risks ending up with a contribution that eventually
turns out to be neither – neither fish, nor fowl. Hence,
he/she is to skillfully negotiate the tightrope, pre-
pared to shift weight if need be. In this way, opting
for a contribution through the use of paradox to un-
derstand and advance management and organization
research does not seem to be an easy task to counter:
if the researcher is to make actual progress, a substan-
tial amount of reflexive capacity seems due. Finally,
publications that use paradox to verbalize something
puzzling can be regarded as highly beneficial for the
introduction of paradox to a large scholarly commu-
nity: by operationalizing the notion of paradox outside
the perimeter of the theoretical conversation on para-
dox, we believe this group of publications to be highly
significant for both the dissemination and promotion
of paradox as a research subject of interest. Yet, con-
sidering these publications to be but loosely related to
the theory on paradox an sich, publications that make
use of this approach do risk obscuring the boundaries
of the paradox literature altogether, driving the com-
munity into a state of conversational confusion: as it
is scope rather than depth that constitutes the vigor of
this approach, publications adhering to it might add to
the chance of spreading the conversation on paradox
too thin.
Taken together, the three approaches constitute
a spectrum of ways for using paradox for the
constitution of a theoretical contribution that is highly
complementary, allowing scholars to enrich scientific
knowledge through a set of different orientations.
If we intend to engender theoretical contributions
through paradox in a way that is both sustainable
and proliferate, no approach identified is to claim ex-
clusive scholarly recognition: only by embracing the
entire spectrum can we develop research that lives


C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
154
up to its full potential. We quote Gioia and Pitre
(1990): ‘Comprehensive understanding occurs only
when many relevant perspectives have been discov-
ered, evaluated, and juxtaposed’ (p. 596).
On tapping multiple approaches at once
In this final discussion point, we point out that com-
plementarity noted makes it viable for authors to build
on the mechanisms of multiple approaches at once.
Rather than being understood as rigidly separated
tracks of understanding, the approaches as advanced
in this paper are thus to be upheld as prototypical cat-
egories, delineating a typology of mechanisms meant
to clarify trends and inspire future practices.
Building on the prior argument of complementar-
ity, we wish to point out that approaches identified
don’t represent strict territories: scanning through our
review sample, we found papers to, at times, tap from
the mechanisms of multiple approaches at once. One
such example can be found in the publication by Smith
(2014): as the author advances paradox as a way to
reflect upon the decision-making capacity of several
managers, she advances paradox as a distinct mode
of thinking about organizational reality as is. How-
ever, rather than halting preoccupations at the level of
understanding, Smith (2014) transcends the notion of
paradoxical thinking by adding to it a distinct practi-
cal connotation, eventually aiding managers studied
in coming to terms with the paradoxical tensions of
reality as experienced. Another illustration of such act
of straddling approaches is found in the publication
by Luscher et al. (2006). Reflecting on the use of para-
dox in treatises on organizational change, the authors
effectively advance scholarly insights on transforma-
tion by resorting to a tension-based body of knowl-
edge. However, marking the process of understanding
organizational phenomena through paradox as a ‘cir-
cle of reflection’, Luscher et al. (2006) then move
from using paradox as a means of understanding to
a means of theorization, adding to the core concep-
tual conversation on paradox as well. Hence, while
the act of straddling the mechanisms of various ap-
proaches of using paradox can be noted as rather rare
in extant research, we acknowledge it does represent
interesting hinging points for authors to consider.
Directions for future research
In this final section, we set out how we believe re-
searchers can further build on the different primary

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
approaches for using paradox to generate meaning-
ful theoretical contributions. Tackling useful direc-
tions for each approach consecutively, we constitute
three sets of advances for researchers to draw from:
future research for using paradox to theorize, future
research for using paradox to understand and advance
management and organization theories, and future
research for using paradox to verbalize something
puzzling.
Future research for using paradox to theorize
A first direction for the generation of theoretical con-
tributions through the use of paradox, is by reviewing
the extant assumptions as embedded in the conversa-
tion’s theoretical core. Given both the maturity of the
conversation on paradox in the field of management
and organization research (Fairhurst et al. 2016) and
the extent of change the business world is currently
experiencing (Birkinshaw and Ridderstråle 2017), we
argue such revitalization of core assumptions to be
highly relevant for the further viability of the paradox
conversation as such: by actively evaluating the de-
gree to which the foundational assumptions of para-
dox theories are still at match with the impact of
oncoming developments, researchers can set the con-
ceptual stage for a paradox conversation that remains
in tune with the unfolding idiosyncrasies of the busi-
ness environment as such (e.g. Jarzabkowski et al.
2019). Several of such developments can be thought
of as putting standing assumptions to question. For
example, as authors have noted firms to have entered
an era of polarized rivalry – in which an extraor-
dinary large number of small firms find themselves
competing with a small amount of large behemoth
companies (Wooldridge 2016) – , it is questionable
to what extent propagated theory on paradox can still
accommodate to this shifted nature of competition.
As the extant body of knowledge on paradox was
built on a playing field that was decisively more lev-
eled, in what way it can still provide valid insights
for firms pitted in strongly oppositional corners can
certainly be put to question. Another example can
be found in the changing character of organizational
supply chains. As boundaries fade between the firm
and the customer (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004),
and between the competitor and the partner (Luo et al.
2007), paradox researchers might need to evaluate
to what extent current theories still hold in the con-
temporary reality of increased interconnection: can
we simply extrapolate insights as originating from an
age of clear inter- and intra-firm boundaries – or do
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
we need to reboot secluded knowledge into the era
of faded borderlines? Finally, although many para-
doxical tensions described have come about from the
notion of organizations as social spheres – think, for
example, of the paradox categories of ‘learning’, ‘be-
longing’, ‘performing’, and ‘organizing’ as advanced
by Smith and Lewis (2011) – , how this presumed
sociality will mark out the future of work remains yet
to be seen. As developments in areas such as big data
(McAfee et al. 2012), artificial intelligence (Repen-
ning et al. 2018), and robotization (Qureshi and Syed
2014) are increasingly pushed, how human interre-
lations will mark out in technological frontline busi-
nesses could starkly differ from the way they have
done in past organizational eras. While we believe
these developmental tracks to offer highly interesting
outsets to work on for those scholars who intend to
use paradox as a means to theorize, we emphasize that
they represent but a small flavor of the many evolu-
tions that can potentially be hinged on to recalibrate
the paradox conversation’s conceptual core. We quote
Alvesson and Sandberg (2013): ‘Theory development
is stimulated and facilitated through the selective in-
terest of what does not work in an existing theory, in
the sense of encouraging interpretations that allow a
productive and non-commonsensical understanding
of ambiguous social reality’ (p. 146). In result, we
acclaim it highly interesting to question whether and
how currently enacted paradox theories still qualify
to address the challenges of our future work envi-
ronment. By tapping from the current development
of organizational reality, we invite scholars to review
the extent to which current paradox assumptions still
adeptly support our active dealing with seemingly il-
logical tensions, eventually rendering a conversation
of elevated scholarly impact and effectuation.
Future research for using paradox to understand
and advance management and organization theories
The second direction we wish to raise as highly
interesting for the development of further theoret-
ical contributions through paradox, is to explicitly
make use of paradox for hands-on engaging with
contemporary organizational practice. While we
noted the leveraging of paradox to better understand
management and organization phenomena to have
been provided with quite some attention, we found
the use of paradox for actively dealing with such phe-
nomena to be but scarcely present. Yet, by leveraging
paradox as a constructive tool for practically advanc-
ing the complex organizational reality as is, contribu-

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
155
tions can be constituted that pragmatically leverage
both the empirical and conceptual realm to a higher
level of relevance and performance. One clear illus-
tration of such approach having yet been utilized for
the development of theoretical contributions is the re-
search of Luscher and Lewis (2008), who advance the
balancing act of paradoxical thinking as the primary
constituent of how to achieve ‘workable certainty’
from ‘mess’ in the process of organizational change
(p. 228). While Luscher and Lewis (2008) position
their study primarily from a managerial perspective,
we deem a similar outset to be highly opportune from
a micro-foundational perspective: how can working
through paradox help to engender employee buy-in
for the process of organizational change? With both
the topic of how to achieve successful organizational
change and the micro-foundational perspective to be
highly called for by the academic and managerial
community alike (see, e.g. Anand and Barsoux 2017;
Foss and Lindenberg 2013; Jarzabkowski et al. 2007;
Jarzabkowski and Wilson 2006), we assert that lever-
aging paradoxical thinking to this area of understand-
ing could generate significant levels of traction. Note
that the infusion of paradox as a pragmatic tool for
advancing organizational reality certainly does not
have to be restricted to the area of organizational
change. On the contrary, areas such as organizational
cognition and mental models (Gentner and Stevens
2014; Johnson-Laird 1980) can be argued as equally
worthy candidates for a hands-on approach through
paradox. How can working through paradox be uti-
lized in altering the hard-to-change mental models of
an organization? Does paradoxical thinking help to
redirect the mental heuristics as commonly upheld in
the organization, and if so, through what processes
does such redirection take place? Here again, sim-
ilar lines of inquiry could be explored from a more
micro-foundational perspective. How can paradoxical
thinking contribute to the decision-making process of
managerial staff? Does the use of paradoxical think-
ing improve the quality of their decision-making pro-
cess, and if so: does this effect differ in the short term
vis-à-vis the long term? Finally, we argue the field
of organizational innovation to offer additional fertile
ground for research that makes pragmatic use of para-
dox to be conducted in. How can working through
paradox improve the way organizations innovate –
how can organizations leverage paradoxical thinking
to benefit their innovation processes? With paradox
having come to represent a solid body of knowledge
to tap from and organizational reality being argued
as ever more complex to practically maneuver (Smith
156
et al. 2017a), we propone that significant research
potential is available for those meaning to establish
theoretical contributions by using paradox as a prac-
tical tool to advance management and organization
phenomena. Paradox displays significant potential for
the concrete advancement of several organizational
challenges: it is by addressing these challenges from
a practical outset that highly interesting theoretical
insights might ensue.
Future research for using paradox to verbalize
something puzzling
A final direction we consider useful for the further
development of meaningful theoretical contributions
through paradox, is to flesh out the wide number of
paradoxes pinpointed by authors as the verbalization
of what they considered puzzling. Given the extraor-
dinary degree of identification that we marked the
research community to have displayed as of yet, we ar-
gue such direction to offer excessive opportunities for
those meaning to further develop theoretical contri-
butions through paradox. Having vocalized the pres-
ence of many ‘seemingly illogical’ tensions in the
broader management and organization field (Lewis
2000), the scholarly community has effectively de-
marcated plenty of interesting outsets that would jus-
tify a concentrated inquiry into how paradoxical phe-
nomena can effectively be made sense of. While such
inquiry would be beneficial for many noted instances
of paradox, we argue scholarly attention to be most
acute for those phenomena that characterize the shift-
ing playing field in which current-day organizations
operate. The work of Daniel et al. (2018) offers an
example to this call: noting mobility and isolation of
online home-workers to be related paradoxically, the
authors eventually push beyond the boundaries of this
initial identification, questioning how the noted para-
doxical experience can extend paradox theorizing as
such (p. 176). With many outsets of noted paradox-
ical phenomena still remaining conceptually unex-
plored, we argue plenty of interesting hinging points
to be abound for future research to spring from. For
instance, building on Neeley and Leonardi’s (2018)
flagging of a gradually emergent paradox in the use of
social media for organizational knowledge creation,
further research could advance theoretical boundaries
by looking into the very processes that lead up to
the notified paradox’s emergence: through what pro-
cesses does the social media paradox come to be, and
how can this phenomenon-based knowledge extend
the way we theorize about paradoxes in general? Or,

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
starting from Navis and Ozbek’s (2016) identification
of the recently noted ‘entrepreneurial entry paradox’ –
in which ‘entrepreneurs high in overconfidence and
narcissism are, to their detriment, propelled toward
more novel venture contexts, and are repelled from
more familiar venture contexts’ (p. 109) – , further
research could look into the very mechanisms that
make this paradox ardent in an entrepreneurial con-
text, eventually extrapolating insights for the general
field of paradox as such. Mazmanian et al.’s (2013)
notification of an ‘autonomy paradox’ present in pro-
fessionals’ use of mobile email devices offers yet
another interesting outset to build upon: given pro-
fessionals’ simultaneous experiences of both more
and less autonomy when connecting through mobile
email devices, future scholarly inquiry could explore
the very processes that interpose these seemingly il-
logical tensions vis-à-vis each other, eventually con-
tributing to our scholarly appreciation of both the
emergence and development of paradoxes as such.
While these examples offer a small illustration of how
researchers can further develop the contributions of
scholars who have used paradox as a means to verbal-
ize something puzzling, we emphasize that the very
number of publications that have used paradox as a
means of verbalization offers enormous potential for
future research. By actively focusing on the dynamics
of marked paradoxes in the field of management and
organization as such, we argue researchers to strike
a potentially important source for further theoretical
advancement – namely, one that drills down on the
modalities of paradoxes as present within contempo-
rary organizational reality.
Conclusion
Curious as paradox may be, the very scholarly
progress paradox has unleashed cannot be referred
to as anything but astounding. By showing the di-
verse and interrelated approaches the research com-
munity has taken in the act of generating scholarly
insight through the use of paradox, we provide schol-
ars with explicit stepping stones for the advancement
and consolidation of theoretical contributions, further
elevating the potential for impactful research as such.
‘The way of paradoxes is the way of truth. To test
reality we must see it on the tight-rope. When the
verities become acrobats, we can judge them’ (Os-
car Wilde, as found in The Picture of Dorian Gray).
Be them captured so many decades ago, these words
never appeared to have rung so true.
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
References
Ahearne, M., Lam, S.K. and Kraus, F. (2014). Performance
impact of middle managers’ adaptive strategy implemen-
tation: the role of social capital. Strategic Management
Journal, 35, pp. 68–87.
Albert, D., Kreutzer, M. and Lechner, C. (2015). Resolving
the paradox of interdependency and strategic renewal in
activity systems. Academy of Management Review, 40, pp.
210–234.
Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management stud-
ies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative
research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, pp. 128–
152.
Anand, N. and Barsoux, J.-L. (2017). What everyone gets
wrong about change management. Harvard Business Re-
view, 95, pp. 79–85.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2001). The paradoxical nature of the
relationship between training and learning. Journal of
Management Studies, 38, pp. 327–350.
Aram, J.D. (1989). The paradox of interdependent relations
in the field of social-issues in management. Academy of
Management Review, 14, pp. 266–283.
Ashcraft, G.E.K.L. and Trethewey, A. (2004). Special is-
sue synthesis: Developing tension: an agenda for applied
research on the organization of irrationality. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 32, pp. 171–181.
Ashford, S.J. (2013). Having scholarly impact: the art of hit-
ting academic home runs. Academy of Management Learn-
ing & Education, 12, pp. 623–633.
Ashforth, B.E. and Reingen, P.H. (2014). Functions of dys-
function: managing the dynamics of an organizational du-
ality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 59, pp. 474–516.
Ashforth, B.E., Rogers, K.M., Pratt, M.G. and Pradies, C.
(2014). Ambivalence in organizations: a multilevel ap-
proach. Organization Science, 25, pp. 1453–1478.
Audia, P.G., Locke, E.A. and Smith, K.G. (2000). The para-
dox of success: an archival and a laboratory study of strate-
gic persistence following radical environmental change.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, pp. 837–853.
Bednarek, R., Paroutis, S. and Sillince, J. (2017). Transcen-
dence through rhetorical practices: responding to paradox
in the science sector. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 77–101.
Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R. and
MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in prob-
lematic change situations. Human Relations, 57, pp. 1313–
1332.
Bergh, D.D. (2003). Thinking strategically about contribu-
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 135–136.
Bernstein, E.S. (2012). The transparency paradox: a role for
privacy in organizational learning and operational control.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, pp. 181–216.
Birkinshaw, J. and Ridderstråle, J. (2017). Fast/Forward:
Make your Company Fit for the Future. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
157
Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (1994). Reflections on qualita-
tive data analysis. In Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (eds),
Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge, pp. 216–
226.
Brynjolfsson, E. and Hitt, L. (1996). Paradox lost? Firm-level
evidence on the returns to information systems spending.
Management Science, 42, pp. 541–558.
Calabretta, G., Gemser, G. and Wijnberg, N.M. (2017). The
interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic deci-
sion making: a paradox perspective. Organization Studies,
38, pp. 365–401.
Cameron, K.S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: consensus
and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness.
Management Science, 32, pp. 539–553.
Castilla, E.J. and Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritoc-
racy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
55, pp. 543–576.
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2011). Building theory about
theory building: what constitutes a theoretical contribu-
tion? Academy of Management Review, 36, pp. 12–32.
Corley, K.G. and Schinoff, B.S. (2017). Who, me? An induc-
tive study of novice experts in the context of how editors
come to understand theoretical contribution. The Academy
of Management Perspectives, 31, pp. 4–27.
Cornelissen, J.P. and Durand, R. (2014). Moving forward: de-
veloping theoretical contributions in management studies.
Journal of Management Studies, 51, pp. 995–1022.
Costanzo, L.A. and Di Domenico, M. (2015). A multi-level
dialectical-paradox lens for top management team strate-
gic decision-making in a corporate venture. British Jour-
nal of Management, 26, pp. 484–506.
Cuganesan, S. (2017). Identity paradoxes: how senior man-
agers and employees negotiate similarity and distinctive-
ness tensions over time. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 489–
511.
Cunha, M.P. e and Putnam, L.L. (2019). Paradox theory and
the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17, pp.
95–106.
Cutcher, L. (2014). Bringing back the bank: local renewal and
agency through community banking. Organization Stud-
ies, 35, pp. 103–119.
Dameron, S. and Torset, C. (2014). The discursive con-
struction of strategists’ subjectivities: towards a paradox
lens on strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 51,
pp. 291–319.
Daniel, E., Di Domenico, M. and Nunan, D. (2018). Virtual
mobility and the lonely cloud: theorizing the mobility–
isolation paradox for self-employed knowledge-workers in
the online home-based business context. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 55, pp. 174–203.
Davidson, D. (1990). Paradoxes of Irrationality. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Davis, A.S., Maranville, S.J. and Obloj, K. (1997). The para-
doxical process of organizational transformation: proposi-
tions and a case study. Research in Organizational Change
and Development, 10, pp. 275–314.
158
Davis, M.S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phe-
nomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenol-
ogy. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, pp. 309–344.
Delacour, H. and Leca, B. (2017). The paradox of controver-
sial innovation: insights from the rise of impressionism.
Organization Studies, 38, pp. 597–618.
Delbridge, R. and Fiss, P.C. (2013). Editors’ com-
ments: Styles of theorizing and the social organization
of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 38,
pp. 325–331.
Denison, D.R., Hooijberg, R. and Quinn, R.E. (1995). Para-
dox and performance – toward a theory of behavioral com-
plexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6,
pp. 524–540.
Dubin, R. (1978). Theory Development. New York: Free
Press.
Eikhof, D.R. and Haunschild, A. (2007). For art’s sake! Artis-
tic and economic logics in creative production. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, 523–538.
Engeström, Y. and Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifes-
tations of contradictions in organizational change efforts:
a methodological framework. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24, pp. 368–387.
Fairhurst, G.T., Smith, W.K., Banghart, S.G., Lewis, M.W.,
Putnam, L.L., Raisch, S. and Schad, J. (2016). Diverging
and converging: integrative insights on a paradox meta-
perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10, pp. 173–
182.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: stability and change as
a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, pp. 202–
225.
Fiegenbaum, A. and Thomas, H. (1988). Attitudes toward
risk and the risk–return paradox – prospect-theory expla-
nations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, pp. 85–106.
Fiol, C.M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: the role of lan-
guage in transforming organizational identities. Organiza-
tion Science, 13, pp. 653–666.
Ford, J.D. and Backoff, R.W. (1988). Organizational Change
In and Out of Dualities and Paradox. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger/Harper & Row.
Foss, N.J. and Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for
strategy: a goal-framing perspective on the drivers of value
creation. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27,
pp. 85–102.
Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., e Cunha, M.P. and Clegg, S. (2018).
Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a system-
atic comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7, p. 6.
Gander, J., Haberberg, A. and Rieple, A. (2007). A para-
dox of alliance management: resource contamination in
the recorded music industry. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, pp. 607–624.
Gann, L. (2017). What is considered a good impact factor?
Available at: http://mdanderson.libanswers.com (accessed
28 March 2018).
Garud, R., Schildt, H.A. and Lant, T.K. (2014). En-
trepreneurial storytelling, future expectations, and the

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
paradox of legitimacy. Organization Science, 25, pp.
1479–1492.
Gentner, D. and Stevens, A.L. (2014). Mental Models. Lon-
don: Psychology Press.
Gergen, K.J. (1982). Toward Transformation in Social
Knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: ne-
gotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human
Relations, 62, pp. 905–935.
Gilbert, C.G. (2006). Change in the presence of residual fit:
can competing frames coexist? Organization Science, 17,
pp. 150–167.
Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and
sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 12, pp. 433–448.
Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives
on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15,
pp. 584–602.
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W. and In-
gram, A.E. (2010). Managing creatives: paradoxical ap-
proaches to identity regulation. Human Relations, 63,
pp. 781–805.
Guthey, E. and Jackson, B. (2005). CEO portraits and the
authenticity paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 42,
pp. 1057–1082.
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J. and Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive
frames in corporate sustainability: managerial sensemak-
ing with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy
of Management Review, 39, pp. 463–487.
Hargrave, T.J. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2017). Integrating di-
alectical and paradox perspectives on managing contra-
dictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38, pp.
319–339.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Wilson, D.C. (2006). Actionable strat-
egy knowledge: a practice perspective. European Manage-
ment Journal, 24, pp. 348–367.
Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J. and Seidl, D. (2007). Strate-
gizing: the challenges of a practice perspective. Human
Relations, 60, pp. 5–27.
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K. and
Cacciatori, E. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational
paradoxes: methodological lessons from a study
of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17,
pp. 120–132.
Jarzabkowski, P., Le, J.K. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2013). Re-
sponding to competing strategic demands: how organizing,
belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic
Organization, 11, pp. 245–280.
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change
and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 56, pp. 137–159.
Jesson, J., Matheson, L. and Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your
Literature Review: Traditional and Systematic Techniques.
London: Sage.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive sci-
ence. Cognitive Science, 4, pp. 71–115.
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
Johnston, S. and Selsky, J.W. (2006). Duality and paradox:
trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice. Organi-
zation Studies, 27, pp. 183–205.
Kacperczyk, A. and Younkin, P. (2017). The paradox of
breadth: the tension between experience and legitimacy
in the transition to entrepreneurship. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 62, pp. 731–764.
Kilduff, M. (2006). Editors’ comments: Publishing theory.
Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 252–255.
King, A.W. and Zeithaml, C.P. (2001). Competencies and
firm performance: examining the causal ambiguity para-
dox. Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 75–99.
Knight, E. and Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: the
TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of
paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38, pp. 403–
432.
Kodama, M. (2003). Strategic innovation in traditional big
business: case studies of two Japanese companies. Orga-
nization Studies, 24, pp. 235–268.
Kovacs, B. and Sharkey, A.J. (2014). The paradox of pub-
licity: how awards can negatively affect the evaluation of
quality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, pp. 1–33.
Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lado, A.A., Boyd, N.G., Wright, P. and Kroll, M. (2006).
Paradox and theorizing within the resource-based view.
Academy of Management Review, 31, pp. 115–131.
Le Breton-Miller, I. and Miller, D. (2015). The paradox of
resource vulnerability: considerations for organizational
curatorship. Strategic Management Journal, 36, pp. 397–
415.
Le Roy, F. and Fernandez, A.S. (2015). Managing coopet-
itive tensions at the working-group level: the rise of the
coopetitive project team. British Journal of Management,
26, pp. 671–688.
LePine, J.A. and Wilcox-King, A. (2010). Editors’ com-
ments: Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews
of existing theory and research. Academy of Management
Review, 35, pp. 506–509.
Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring paradox: toward a more com-
prehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25,
pp. 760–776.
Lewis, M.W. and Grimes, A.J. (1999). Metatriangulation:
building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of
Management Review, 24, pp. 672–690.
Lewis, M.W. and Kelemen, M.L. (2002). Multiparadigm in-
quiry: exploring organizational pluralism and paradox.
Human Relations, 55, pp. 251–275.
Littler, C.R. and Innes, P. (2004). The paradox of managerial
downsizing. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 1159–1184.
Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A. and Tse, D.K. (2007). Working
with rivals: the impact of competitor alliances on finan-
cial performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 44,
pp. 73–83.
Luscher, L.S., Lewis, M. and Ingram, A. (2006). The so-
cial construction of organizational change paradoxes.

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
159
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19,
pp. 491–502.
Luscher, L.S. and Lewis, M.W. (2008). Organizational
change and managerial sensemaking: working through
paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, pp. 221–
240.
MacLean, D. and MacIntosh, R. (2015). Planning reconsid-
ered: paradox, poetry and people at the edge of strategy.
European Management Journal, 33, pp. 72–78.
Marrone, J.A., Tesluk, P.E. and Carson, J.B. (2007). A mul-
tilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of
team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, pp. 1423–1439.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (2013). The
autonomy paradox: the implications of mobile email de-
vices for knowledge professionals. Organization Science,
24, pp. 1337–1357.
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T.H., Patil, D. and
Barton, D. (2012). Big data: the management revolution.
Harvard Business Review, 90, pp. 60–68.
Miller, S.R., Indro, D.C., Richards, M. and Chng, D.H.M.
(2013). Financial implications of local and nonlocal rival
isomorphism: a signaling paradox. Journal of Manage-
ment, 39, pp. 1979–2008.
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M. and Naveh, E. (2011). The effect
of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team
innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy
of Management Journal, 54, pp. 740–760.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W.K. and
Lewis, M.W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational
paradox: the problem is how we think about the problem.
Academy of Management Journal, 61, pp. 26–45.
Muhlhaus, J. and Bouwmeester, O. (2016). The paradoxical
effect of self-categorization on work stress in a high-status
occupation: insights from management consulting. Human
Relations, 69, pp. 1823–1852.
Navis, C. and Ozbek, O.V. (2016). The right people in the
wrong places: the paradox of entrepreneurial entry and
successful opportunity realization. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 41, pp. 109–129.
Neeley, T.B. and Leonardi, P.M. (2018). Enacting knowl-
edge strategy through social media: passable trust and the
paradox of nonwork interactions. Strategic Management
Journal, 39, pp. 922–946.
Ofori-Dankwa, J. and Julian, S.D. (2004). Conceptualizing
social science paradoxes using the diversity and similarity
curves model: illustrations from the work/play and theory
novelty/continuity paradoxes. Human Relations, 57, pp.
1449–1477.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T. and Grant, D. (2002). Metaphor and
analogical reasoning in organization theory: beyond ortho-
doxy. Academy of Management Review, 27, pp. 294–303.
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Mannucci, P.V. (2017). From creativity
to innovation: the social network drivers of the four phases
of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42,
pp. 53–79.
160
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G. and Pod-
sakoff, N.P. (2005). The influence of management journals
in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal,
26, pp. 473–488.
Poggi, G. (1965). A main theme of contemporary sociologi-
cal analysis: its achievements and limitations. The British
Journal of Sociology, 16, pp. 283–294.
Poole, M.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1989). Using paradox to
build management and organization theories. Academy of
Management Review, 14, pp. 562–578.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation ex-
periences: the next practice in value creation. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 18, pp. 5–14.
Pratt, M.G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boil-
erplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative re-
search. Academy of Management Journal, 52, pp. 856–
862.
Putnam, L.L., Fairhurst, G.T. and Banghart, S. (2016). Con-
tradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a
constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals,
10, pp. 65–171.
Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (eds) (1988). Paradox and
Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organiza-
tion and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger/Harper
& Row.
Qureshi, M.O. and Syed, R.S. (2014). The impact of robotics
on employment and motivation of employees in the service
sector, with special reference to health care. Safety and
Health at Work, 5, pp. 198–202.
Ramos-Rodrı́guez, A.R. and Ruı́z-Navarro, J. (2004).
Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic man-
agement research: a bibliometric study of the strategic
management journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management
Journal, 25, pp. 981–1004.
Repenning, N.P., Kieffer, D. and Repenning, J. (2018). A
new approach to designing work. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 59, pp. 29–38.
Rindova, V. (2011). Moving from ideas to a theoretical con-
tribution: comments on the process of developing theory
in organizational research. Journal of Supply Chain Man-
agement, 47, pp. 19–21.
Ruefli, T.W. (1990). Mean–variance approaches to risk–
return relationships in strategy: paradox lost. Management
Science, 36, pp. 368–380.
Rynes, S. (2002). Some reflections on contribution. Academy
of Management Journal, 45, pp. 311–313.
Sastry, M.A. (1997). Problems and paradoxes in a model of
punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42, pp. 237–275.
Schad, J. and Bansal, P. (2018). Seeing the forest and the
trees: how a systems perspective informs paradox research.
Journal of Management Studies, 55, pp. 1490–1506.
Schad, J., Lewis, M.W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W.K. (2016).
Paradox research in management science: looking back to
move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10, pp.
5–64.

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
B. De Keyser et al.
Schad, J., Lewis, M.W. and Smith, W.K. (2019). Quo
vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces
in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17,
pp. 107–119.
Schmitt, A. and Raisch, S. (2013). Corporate turnarounds:
the duality of retrenchment and recovery. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 50, pp. 1216–1244.
Schmitt, A., Raisch, S. and Volberda, H.W. (2018). Strategic
renewal: past research, theoretical tensions and future chal-
lenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20,
pp. 81–98.
Shaver, J.M. (2006). A paradox of synergy: contagion and
capacity effects in mergers and acquisitions. Academy of
Management Review, 31, pp. 962–976.
Sheep, M.L., Fairhurst, G.T. and Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots
in the discourse of innovation: investigating multiple ten-
sions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38,
pp. 463–488.
Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M.W. and Tracey,
P. (2017a). Adding complexity to theories of paradox, ten-
sions, and dualities of innovation and change: introduction
to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions,
and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Stud-
ies, 38, pp. 303–317.
Smith, W., Lewis, M., Jarzabkowski, P. and Langley, A. (eds)
(2017b). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Para-
dox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, W.K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: a model of
senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, pp. 1592–1623.
Smith, W.K. and Lewis, M.W. (2011). Toward a theory of
paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing.
Academy of Management Review, 36, pp. 381–403.
Smith, W.K. and Tracey, P. (2016). Institutional complex-
ity and paradox theory: complementarities of competing
demands. Strategic Organization, 14, pp. 455–466.
Stadtler, L. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2016). Coopetition
as a paradox: integrative approaches in a multi-company,
cross-sector partnership. Organization Studies, 37, pp.
655–685.
Thompson, P., Jones, M. and Warhurst, C. (2007). From con-
ception to consumption: creativity and the missing man-
agerial link. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, pp.
625–640.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003). Towards a
methodology for developing evidence-informed manage-
ment knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14, pp. 207–222.
Tse, T. (2013). Paradox resolution: a means to achieve strate-
gic innovation. European Management Journal, 31, pp.
682–696.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide
for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Wadhwa, A., Freitas, I.M.B. and Sarkar, M.B. (2017). The
paradox of openness and value protection strategies: effect
Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions
of extramural R&D on innovative performance. Organi-
zation Science, 28, pp. 873–893.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations, Vol. 3.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in
the frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 37–
58.
Whetten, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical con-
tribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 490–
495.
Wooldridge, A. (2016). The rise of the superstars. The
Economist, 420, pp. 1–16.
Zhang, Y., George, J.A. and Chan, T.S. (2006). The paradox
of dueling identities: the case of local senior executives in
MNC subsidiaries. Journal of Management, 32, pp. 400–
425.

C 2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
161
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D.A., Han, Y.L. and Li, X.B. (2015).
Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: an-
tecedents and consequences. Academy of Management
Journal, 58, pp. 538–566.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found on-
line in the Supporting Information section at the end
of the article.
Appendix S1. Example of paper codification.
Appendix S2. Overview of articles reviewed, accord-
ing to approach of using paradox for making theoret-
ical contributions.