AndriopoulosC.LewisM. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.
2.
AshforthB. E.ReingenP. H. (2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214537811
3.
AshforthB. E.RogersK. M.PrattM. G.PradiesC. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organi-zation Science, 25(5): 1453–1478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
4.
BednarekR.CunhaM. P.SchadJ.SmithW. K. (in press). Implementing interdisciplinary paradox research. Research in the Sociology of Organizations.
5.
BertiM.SimpsonA. (2019). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0208
6.
BrinkD. O. (2003). Prudence and authenticity: Intrapersonal conflicts of value. The Philosophical Review, 112(2), 215–245.
7.
BrowmanG. P. (2001). Development and aftercare of clinical guidelines: The balance between rigor and pragmatism. JAMA, 286(12), 1509–1511. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.12.1509
CarmineS.SmithW. K. (in press). “Organizational paradox”. In GriffinRicky (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in management. Oxford University Press.
10.
ChenM. -J. (2002). Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 20(1), 133–134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022024730957
11.
ChildC. (2020). Whence paradox? Framing away the potential challenges of doing well by doing good in social enterprise organizations. Organization Studies, 41(8), 1147–1167.
12.
CoorenF.SeidlD. (2020). Niklas Luhmann’s radical communication approach and its implications for research on organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 45, 479–497. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0176
Dinis-OliveiraR. J. (2020). COVID-19 research: Pandemic versus “paperdemic”, integrity, values and risks of the “speed science”. Forensic Sciences Research, 5(2), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754
15.
EtterM.RavasiD.ColleoniE. (2019). Social media and the formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Review, 44(1), 28–52.
16.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. L. (in press). Organizational paradoxes: A constitutive approach. Routledge.
GaimM.CleggS.CunhaM. P. E. (2019). Managing impressions rather than emissions: Volkswagen and the false mastery of paradox. Organization Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840619891199
GelfandM. J.JacksonJ. C.PanX.NauD.DagherM.Van LangeP.ChiuC. Y. (2020). The importance of cultural tightness and government efficiency for understanding COVID-19 growth and death rates. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/.10.31234/osf.io/m7f8a
21.
GlasgowR. E. (2013). What Does It Mean to Be Pragmatic? Pragmatic methods, measures, and models to facilitate research translation. Health Education & Behavior, 40(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113486805
22.
GoldsmithA. (2005). Police reform and the problem of trust. Theoretical Criminology, 9(4), 443–470.
23.
GraepelK. W.KochharS.ClaytonE. W.EdwardsK. E. (2020). Balancing expediency and scientific rigor in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine development. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 222(2), 180–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa234
24.
GrintK. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership’. Human Relations, 58(11), 1467–1494.
25.
GümüsayA. A.SmetsM.MorrisT. (2019). “God at work”: Engaging central and incompatible institutional logics through elastic hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 124–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0481
26.
HahnT.KnightE. (2019). The ontology of organizational Paradox: A quantum approach. Academy of Management Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0408
27.
HahnT.PinkseJ.PreussL.FiggeF. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5
28.
HahnT.PreussL.PinkseJ.FiggeF. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0341
29.
HardyC.MaguireS. (2020). Organizations, risk translation and the ecology of risks: The discursive construction of a novel risk. Academy of Management Journal, 63(3), 685–716. https://journals.aom.org/doi/pdf/10.5465/amj.2017.0987
30.
HardyC.MaguireS.PowerM.TsoukasH. (2020). Organizing risk: Organization and management theory for the risk society. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 1032–1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0110
31.
HargraveT. J.Van de VenA. H. (2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640843
32.
HeadB. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–118.
33.
HengstI. -A.JarzabkoswkiP.HoeglM.MuethelM. (2020). Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 246–271.
HoggM. A.TerryD. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.
40.
JayyusiL. (1984). Categorization and the moral order. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
41.
JenningsW. G.PerezN. M. (2020). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on law enforcement in the United States. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 690–701.
42.
JianG.FairhurstG. T. (2020, July2). Between panopticon and care: Understanding the grand challenge of assuring reliability and security from a paradox lens [Paper presentation]. European and Organizational Studies Conference, Subtheme 09: Change for Good? Organizational Paradoxes and Unintended Consequences of Transforming Modern Societies. Hamburg, Germany.
43.
JohnsonB. (2014). Reflections: A perspective on paradox and its application to modern management. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314524909
44.
KearneyE.ShemlaM.Van KnippenbergD.ScholzF. A. (2019). A paradox perspective on the interactive effects of visionary and empowering leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.001
45.
KellerJ.ChenE. W. (2017). A road map of the paradoxical mind: Expanding cognitive theories on organizational paradox. In SmithW. K.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 66–86). Oxford University Press.
46.
KellerJ.Sadler-SmithE. (2019). Paradoxes and dual processes: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 162–184.
47.
KellerJ.WongS. S.LiouS. (2020). How social networks facilitate collective responses to organizational paradoxes. Human Relations, 73(3), 401–428.
KnightE.HahnT. (2020). Paradox and quantum mechanics - Implications for the management of organizational paradox from a quantum approach. In BednarekR.PinaM.CunhaeSchadJ.SmithW. K. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations. Emerald.
50.
KreinerG. E.HollensbeE. C.SheepM. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057.
51.
LeungA. K. Y.LiouS.Miron-SpektorE.KohB.ChanD.EisenbergR.SchneiderI. (2018). Middle ground approach to paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 443.
52.
LevinS.XepapadeasT.CrépinA. -S.NorbergJ. O. N.De ZeeuwA.FolkeC. (2013). Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Modeling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics, 18(2), 111–132.
LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322
55.
LiX. (2018). Zhong-Yong as dynamic balancing between Yin-Yang opposites. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 25(2), 375–379.
56.
LiX. (2020a, July2). SCENT: A typology of five generic solutions to paradoxical integration. 36th EGOS Colloquium, Hamburg.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
59.
MatierP. (2020, August16). SF police appear to be doing their own defunding as cops leave in record numbers. San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfchronicle.com/
Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
62.
Miron-SpektorE.Efrat-TreisterD.RafaeliA.Schwarz-CohenO. (2011). Others’ anger makes people work harder not smarter: The effect of observing anger and sarcasm on creative and analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Psychology. 96(5), 1065–1075.
63.
Miron-SpektorE.ErezM. (2017). Looking at creativity through a paradox lens. In SmithWendy K.LewisMarianne W.JarzabkowskiPaulaLangleyAnn (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organizational Paradox (pp. 434–450). Oxford University Press.
64.
MurnighanJ. K.MalhotraD.WeberJ. M. (2004). Paradoxes of trust: Empirical and theoretical departures from a traditional model. In KramerR. M.CookK. S. (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 293–326). Russell Sage Foundation
NewtonT. J. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor-network theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 523–540.
67.
NilssonM.ChisholmE.GriggsD.Howden-ChapmanP.McCollumD.MesserliP. (2018). Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: Lessons learned and ways forward. Sustainability Science, 13(6), 1489–1503.
68.
OksanenA.KaakinenM.LatikkaR.SavolainenI.SavelaN.KoivulaA. (2020). Regulation and trust: 3-month follow-up study on COVID-19 mortality in 25 European countries. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(2), Article e19218.
69.
OuC. X.SiaC. L. (2009). To trust or to distrust, that is the question: Investigating the trust-distrust paradox. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 135–139.
70.
PamphileV. D. (2020). Paradox peers: A relational approach to sustaining sommitment to paradox (Working paper, George Washington University).
Police1. (2020, June2). Police recruitment and retention woes are increasing – here’s how your agency can respond. Police1 by Lexipol. http://www.police1.com/
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308389
75.
PradiesC.TunarosaA.LewisM. W.CourtoisJ. (2020). From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: The social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620907200
76.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
RaischS.HargraveT. J.van de VenA. H. (2018). The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507–1526.
79.
RameyD. M.ShriderE. A. (2014). New parochialism, sources of community investment, and the control of street crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(2), 193–216.
80.
Raza-UllahT.BengtssonM.KockS. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.
81.
ReineckeJ.AnsariS. (2016). Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 299–329.
RockströmJ.SteffenW.NooneK.PerssonÅ.ChapinI.IIFS.LambinE. F. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472.
85.
RogeljJ.ForsterP. M.KrieglerE.SmithC. J.SéférianR. (2019). Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature, 571(7765), 335–342.
86.
SchadJ.BansalP. (2018). Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1490–1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12398
87.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2019). Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786218
88.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
89.
SchadJ.SmithW. K. (2019). Addressing grand challenges’ paradoxes: Leadership skills to manage inconsistencies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(4), 55–59.
SergentK.StajkovicA. D. (2020). Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771–783.
92.
SharmaG.BansalP. (2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 341–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616683739
93.
SheepM. L. (2020). Paradoxes in the pursuit of positive identities: Individuals in organizations becoming their best. In BrownA. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of identities in organizations (pp. 618–636). Oxford University Press.
94.
SheepM. L.FairhurstG. T.KhazanchiS. (2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640845
95.
SimonH. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). The Macmillan Company.
96.
SinghJ. A.RavinettoR. (2020). COVID-19 therapeutics: How to sow confusion and break public trust during international public health emergencies. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, 13(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40545-020-00244-0
97.
SitkinS. B.RothN. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4(3), 367–392.
98.
SlawinskiN.BansalP. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0960
99.
SlawinskiN.BansalP. (2017). The paradoxes of time in organizations. In SmithW. K.LewisM. W.JarzabkowskiP.Langley AA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (373–392). Oxford University Press.
100.
SmithW. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932
101.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826
102.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 38–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
103.
SmithW. K.TraceyP. (2016). Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127016638565
104.
SmithW. K.GoninM.BesharovM. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.
105.
SteffenW.RichardsonK.RockströmJ.CornellS. E.FetzerI.BennettE. M. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223).
106.
SundaramurthyC.LewisM. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415.
107.
TajfelH. (1972). Social categorization. In MoscoviciS. (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale (pp. 30–37). Larousse.
TraceyP.CreedD. W. E. (2017). Beyond managerial dilemmas: The Study of Institutional Paradoxes in Organization Theory. In SmithWendy K.LewisMarianne W.JarzabkowskiPaulaLangleyAnn (Eds.), The oxford handbook of organizational Paradox (pp. 162–176). Oxford University Press.
110.
Urban Institute. (2017). State and local finance initiative: Police and corrections expenditures. Author.
111.
UusitaloL. (1989). Economic man or social man — exploring free riding in the production of collective goods. In GrunertK. G.ÖlanderF. (Eds.), Understanding economic behaviour (pp. 267–283). Springer.
112.
Van der BylC. A.SlawinskiN. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79.
113.
Van der BylC.SlawinskiN.HahnT. (2020). Responsible management of sustainability tensions: A paradoxical approach to grand challenges. In LaaschO.JamaliD.Freeman E.E. R.SuddabyR. (Eds.), Research handbook of responsible management. Edward Elgar Publishing.
114.
VinceR.BroussineM. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1), 1–21.
115.
WilsonS. (2020). Pandemic leadership: Lessons from New Zealand’s approach to COVID-19. Leadership, 16(3), 279–293.
116.
WinklerP.EtterM.CastellóI. (2020). Vicious and virtuous circles of aspirational talk: From self-persuasive to agonistic CSR rhetoric. Business & Society, 59(1), 98–128.
117.
Yeo-TehN. S. L.TangB. L. (2020). An alarming retraction rate for scientific publications on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Accountability in Research, 28(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1782203
ZhangY.HanY. L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 42–54.
121.
ZhengW.KarkR.MeisterA. L. (2018a). Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(5), 584–596.
122.
ZhengW.SurgevilO.KarkR. (2018b). Dancing on the razor’s edge: How top-level women leaders manage the paradoxical tensions between agency and communion. Sex Roles, 79(11–12), 633–650.