Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison

Gaim, Medhanie; Wåhlin, Nils; Cunha, Miguel Piña e; Clegg, Stewart

doi:10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This since, prior research suggests that competing demands can be of different types (e.g. dilemma, trade-off, dialectic, duality, paradox) based on a number of distinguishing features that require different responses (Gaim, Wåhlin, Cunha, & Clegg, 2018). Drawing upon this, one could argue that depending on the type of the competing demands coopetitors face, the necessity of trust and/or distrust varies.…”

Section: Research Avenue 3 Trust and Distrust In The Light Of Competmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Kostis

Näsholm

2019

Journal of Trust Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust has been acknowledged as an important aspect of interorganizational relationships. Yet, limited attention has been paid to the importance of trust in the light of coopetitive interactions, i.e. simultaneously cooperating and competing. Research on trust has started to acknowledge that more trust may not always be better, and that trust and distrust are separate and distinct phenomena. Whilst coopetition research has mentioned the important role of trust, the potential role of distrust is even less acknowledged, although it may be particularly relevant due to the tensions, risks, and uncertainties involved. The purpose of this paper is to identify limitations and gaps in the extant literature on trust in coopetition, bring promising research opportunities into light, and create an agenda for future research focused on the roles of both trust and distrust in coopetition. By means of a systematic literature review, we find that the importance of trust in different phases of coopetition has been acknowledged by prior research, yet deeper explanations of how, when, and why different aspects of trust and distrust matter to coopetition are missing. A normative view on trust prevails and the potential fruitfulness of distrust is neglected. Based on these limitations, an agenda including six promising research avenues is constructed.

show abstract

Section: Research Avenue 3 Trust and Distrust In The Light Of Competmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Kostis

Näsholm

2019

Journal of Trust Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this sense, African management should not necessarily reject Western management knowledge outright, but should synthesize it with local specificities. Inspired by the literature on paradoxes related to organizational tensions and contradictions, we see this effort of integration as potentially fruitful (Gaim et al, 2018), as new knowledge can be created without rendering any of the poles subaltern. In fact, what defines a paradoxical view of organizations and management is the fact that it accepts that different -even opposite -visions and perspectives can coexist and that this coexistence can be a form of vitality and discovery rather than one of dissonance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autochthonous management knowledge/knowledge management in Africa

Zoogah

Gomes

Cunha

2020

JKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There is a growing desire for more scientific and technical knowledge regarding Africa. This is because Africa has the potential and opportunity to generate impactful research. However, this potential is not optimized because of several constraints, including the lack of systematic reviews and models of knowledge management and paradoxical trends in Africa. The purpose of this paper is to review studies on knowledge management and associated paradoxes in Africa and a paradox-conscious African knowledge management model. The autochthonous African model that the authors propose has implications for global knowledge management. Design/methodology/approach The authors review studies on knowledge management and paradoxes on Africa. Findings The authors propose a model and identify 12 paradoxes broadly categorized as industrial, political and social. Practical implications The paradoxical tensions characteristic of Africa may be considered integral to business and policy rather than local expressions to be solved through international “best practice.” Originality/value The model this paper propose enables theoretical and empirical studies of knowledge management sensitive to the paradoxical tensions associated with autochthonous management knowledge and autochthonous knowledge management.

show abstract

“…Although marking the surprising or seemingly illogical (Lewis ; Poole and Van de Ven ), our reality seems rife with it: how organizations operate has been repeatedly argued as being more bound by contradiction than by rational logics (Ashcraft and Trethewey ; Gaim et al . ). Maybe even more curious than paradox's widespread manifestation, is its incitation of insight (Putnam et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…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 argued 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 : scanning the area of management and organization research, it seems that paradox 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 (Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015), and leadership (Denison et al 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions in Management and Organization Research

Keyser

Guiette

Vandenbempt

2019

Int J Management Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Finally, 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 contributions 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.

show abstract

Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison

Cited by 30 publications

References 66 publications

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Towards a research agenda on how, when and why trust and distrust matter to coopetition

Autochthonous management knowledge/knowledge management in Africa

On the Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions in Management and Organization Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About