Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Xin LiORCiD
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Organizational paradox literature points out the importance of both/and thinking and acting. While the notion of both/and is largely treated as a unitary concept, paradox scholars have associated it with diverse responses to paradoxical tensions, such as ambidexterity, Yin-Yang balancing, and Zhong-Yong middle way. To bring order to the literature, this paper aims to decompose the notion of both/and, and identify generic strategies for balancing paradoxical opposites, i.e., to hold or achieve both elements of a paradoxical tension simultaneously. We first review existing classifications of approaches to paradoxical tensions, resulting in the identification of six distinct non-either/or responses. We then use these distinct responses to help build a typology to accommodate and relate ten generic strategies, falling into five categorical types characterized as superficial, multiversal, amalgamative, reconciliatory, and transcendental, respectively (and hence the SMART acronym). Finally, we propose a prescriptive model of selection of generic strategies under different circumstances.
Author(s): Li X
Editor(s): Sonia Taneja
Publication type: Conference Proceedings (inc. Abstract)
Publication status: Published
Conference Name: 84th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management
Year of Conference: 2024
Pages: 1-6
Print publication date: 01/08/2024
Online publication date: 09/07/2024
Acceptance date: 15/04/2024
ISSN: 0065-0668
Publisher: Academy of Management
URL: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2024.101bp
DOI: 10.5465/AMPROC.2024.101bp
