Dear OMT'ers -
Our apologies for cross-posting. We look forward to a robust conversation on paradoxes of organizations and organizing this summer in Helsinki. We hope you will consider joining us.
Exploring the Paradoxes of Organizations and Organizing
EGOS 2012 – July 5-7 2012 - Helsinki, Finland
Deadline:January 16, 2012 - Short papers due (3000 words) - www.egosnet.org
Designing organizations raises multiple, interwoven tensions. By defining who we are, what we do, and how we do it, we inherently imply the opposite forces (Clegg, 2002; Ford & Backoff, 1988), resulting in such tensions as exploring vs. exploiting, centralization vs. decentralization, stability vs. flexibility, and control vs. freedom. Such opposing elements emerge in the nature of our organizations, as well as in our processes of organizing (Weick, 1979).
Traditionally, theorists have responded to organizational tensions via a contingency approach. Asking "under what conditions should we engage A or B?", contingency theory emphasizes either/or tradeoffs. For example, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) identified structural distinctions of when to differentiate or integrate, whereas Tushman and Romanelli (1985) highlighted time periods to more effectively explore or exploit.
An alternative, paradoxical approach asks how organizations can sustain competing demands simultaneously. According to paradox theory, underlying tensions are inherent within organizations, and attending to these competing demands simultaneously enables long-run organizational success (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Rather than explore either/or tradeoffs, a paradox perspectives identifies both/and opportunities. By recognizing the ongoing persistence of underlying tensions, paradox theory points to the need for dynamic, adaptive organizations, and flexible, improvising routines (Clegg, Cuhna, & Cuhna, 2002; Smith & Lewis, 2011)}.
Increasingly research has adopted a paradox perspective, pointing to underlying tensions in the design of organizations and in the process of organizing, as well as exploring how to use design to effectively engage competing tensions simultaneously. For example, research on ambidexterity identifies how design features such as the organizations structure (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008) and context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) can more effectively support tensions. Others have reflexively recognized the role of engaging competing demands to drive greater creativity and innovation into the design process (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Rothenberg, 1979). For example, paradox underlies the principles and process that enables the management of self-managed teams at LEGO (Luscher & Lewis, 2008).
In this subtheme, we seek to explore how paradox theory might shift our understanding of design. Specifically, we invite papers that explore some of the following, illustrative questions:
Underlying tensions – What competing tensions emerge in the design of organizations and in the process of organizing?
Strategies - How can we more effectively design organizations to embrace paradoxical tensions simultaneously?
Outcomes – What are the outcomes associated with different strategies for engaging paradoxical tensions? Alternatively, how does a paradox perspective effect definitions of organizational performance and success? For example, does a paradox lens necessitate shifting traditional definitions based on a profit motive to broader and pluralistic stakeholder assessments?
Methods - How can researchers explore paradoxes? How might paradox-oriented methods differ from dominant conventions aimed at identifying tradeoffs through central tendencies? What qualitative and quantitative approaches can enrich paradoxical understandings?
Wendy Smith (smithw@udel.edu) is associate professor of management in the Lerner College of Business and Economics at the University of Delaware. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Harvard University and the Harvard Business School. Her research managing strategic paradoxes, exploring and exploiting and ambidexterity has been published in places such as the Academy of Management Review, Organization Science and Management Science. Wendy has attended EGOS in 2008, where she was awarded the EGOS Best Conference Paper award, and was lead convenor of a subtrack for EGOS in 2010.
Constantine Andriopoulos (andriopoulosc@cardiff.ac.uk) is professor of strategy in Cardiff Business School. He received his PhD from the University of Strathclyde. His research focuses on the management of creativity and innovation with particular emphasis on professional service firms. His recent projects focus on managing tensions and paradoxes to sustain innovation in high velocity industries. His articles have appeared in Organization Science, Human Relations and Long Range Planning, among others.
Marianne Lewis (marianne.lewis@uc.edu) is professor of management and associate dean for undergraduate programs at University of Cincinnati Business School. Her research explores tensions, conflicts, and paradoxes that both impede and enable innovation. Her paper, "Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide" received the Academy of Management Review Best Paper Award in 2000. She has since applied her paradox lens to varied areas of innovation with representative articles appearing in such journals as the Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science, Journal of Operations Management, and Human Relations. Marianne served as a co-convener of an EGOS subtrack in 2010.