In this article, we argue for the reconceptualization of the control-freedom paradox in managing and motivating innovators. We call for conceptually separating managerial control and the consideration of organizational benefit, and caution that treating them as synonymous can lead managers to protect innovators from the very factors that support their intrinsic motivation. We draw attention to the dual motivational drivers of innovators, namely personal interest and organizational benefit, and discuss how they interact in defining the level of innovators' intrinsic motivation toward creative efforts. In so doing, we draw attention to the paradoxical nature of creative freedom: While the need to contribute to organizational benefit sets boundaries for creative action taken in an organizational context, it is simultaneously essential for the sense of autonomy experienced by innovators. Our findings contribute to the paradox studies of innovation, creativity, and innovation management, research on the complexity of intrinsic motivation as well as studies of change processes in organizations.

No abstract

In this paper, we demonstrate how performing and belonging paradoxes act as triggers, mitigators and amplifiers for each other in moment-by-moment interaction. We show how expressing a performing paradox as part of group practice triggers belonging tensions, particularly when there is a strong expectation towards a uniform value-base. We further demonstrate how another performing paradox at the organization level is constructed to mitigate the belonging paradox through latency. This leads to an amplification dynamic where a paradox that is more socially appropriate is reinforced in order to cope with a more interactionally problematic one. Our results speak to research on the intertwined nature of paradoxical tensions and the relationship between latency and salience in working through paradox. Our study advocates for developing a more systematic approach for studying the interactional foundations of organizational paradox and offers ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) as one means to achieve improved understanding in this domain.

PurposeThe study aims to explore job demands experienced by employees and managers in micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Drawing on the job demands framework, the study discusses the experienced demands from the perspective of challenges that create opportunities for learning and achievement and hindrances that create obstacles for work. The study builds on the idea that the same demand can be perceived both as a challenge and a hindrance. That approach opens a path to responding to challenges by reformulating working practices and removing hindrances by designing, developing and crafting jobs and tasks.Design/methodology/approachThe authors analyzed open-ended survey responses (N = 306) to study experienced job demands in 50 micro-enterprises and SMEs, how the perceived demands differ between employees and managers and whether they represent challenge or hindrance demands.FindingsThe authors identified 17 job demand categories most including both challenge and hindrance demands. Time management and prioritization was the most central challenge and hindrance category for both employees and managers. For employees, sales and stakeholder relationships represented the second largest challenge category and communication and information flow was the second largest hindrance category. For managers, the second largest challenge and hindrance categories were organization and management of activities and the fragmentation of work, respectively.Originality/valueBy focusing on employee experience, the achieve a more nuanced understanding of the SME context, which has been dominated by managerial evaluations. The study also advances the discussion on job demands by extending our knowledge of demands that may be experienced both as a challenge and a hindrance.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a qualitative study concerning managers’ and employees’ rhetorical evaluations of a spatial organizational change. Design/methodology/approach The approach of rhetorical social psychology is applied to study how the actors of an organization speak about a transformation from a single-room office setting to an open, multi-space office. The material consists of 36 interviews. Findings It was found that the responsible managers and employees used contradictory argumentation of what “real work” is like and what the change will result in as rhetorical resources when supporting and contesting the transformation. Although their set of arguments and counter-arguments drew from the same beliefs and values, they were used for opposite purposes. Practical implications The results of this research advance awareness of the multidimensional and contradictory nature of change rhetoric and this understanding can be utilized in supporting more effective change programs. For example, instead of constructing unnecessary polarizations between those who resist change and its supporters, the study facilitates to identify the ambiguity of argumentation related to change and the differing symbolic meanings subscribed to. Originality/value The study contributes to the organizational change literature by showing the ambiguity of change rhetoric and the contradictory nature of argumentation, both within the talk of specific employee groups and between groups.