大流行危机期间组织紧张关系的悖论方法

IF 4.1 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Journal of Management Inquiry Pub Date : 2021-04-01 DOI:10.1177/1056492620986863
Simone Carmine, C. Andriopoulos, Manto Gotsi, Charmine E J Härtel, A. Krzemińska, N. Mafico, Camille Pradies, H. Raza, Tatbeeq Raza-Ullah, Stephanie Schrage, Garima Sharma, Natalie Slawinski, Lea Stadtler, Andrea Tunarosa, Casper Winther-Hansen, J. Keller
{"title":"大流行危机期间组织紧张关系的悖论方法","authors":"Simone Carmine, C. Andriopoulos, Manto Gotsi, Charmine E J Härtel, A. Krzemińska, N. Mafico, Camille Pradies, H. Raza, Tatbeeq Raza-Ullah, Stephanie Schrage, Garima Sharma, Natalie Slawinski, Lea Stadtler, Andrea Tunarosa, Casper Winther-Hansen, J. Keller","doi":"10.1177/1056492620986863","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic is a massive exogenous shock that reverberated around the world, forcing all types of organizations to change overnight—from the local coffee shop to the international airline. As we try to make sense of the events surrounding the pandemic, one question that has perplexed both scholars and managers alike has been the extent to which this experience is qualitatively different from others. One area of research to turn to is research on organizational paradoxes, as the organizational paradox literature has focused extensively on how organizations experience change (e.g., Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Tracey, 2016). According to the paradox literature, major exogenous change impacts organizations by increasing the saliency of organizational tensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011), such as tensions between exploration and exploitation (e.g., Smith, 2014), cooperation and competition (e.g., Raza-Ullah et al., 2014), or control and collaboration (e.g., Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). The increased salience of tensions is critical for understanding organizations undergoing major change because tensions are both multi-level and multi-faceted, impacting actors ranging from the CEO to the front-line employee (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013) and involving responses that are cognitive (e.g., MironSpektor et al., 2018), emotional (e.g., Vince & Broussine, 1996), and material (e.g., Knight & Paroutis, 2017). By focusing attention on the tensions that organizations experience during the pandemic and their responses, the paradox literature can provide shards of clarity to this otherwise incomprehensible event. At the same time, unpacking the pandemic experience through a paradox lens can reveal new insights on organizational tensions, enabling scholars to gain sense of future, seemingly, senseless events. To address the organizational experience during the COVID-19 pandemic through a paradox lens, we explore five examples of tensions that have been especially salient during the pandemic crisis: the short-term versus long-term tensions (see Slawinski later in the text); social versus economic goal tensions (see Schrage later in the text), learning versus performing tensions (see Winther-Hansen, Carmine, Andriopoulos, and Gotsi later in the text); common good versus individual privacy tensions (see Raza and Keller later in the text) and agency tensions (see Krzeminska, Mafico, and Härtel, and Tunarosa later in the text). As uncertainty about the size and scope of the pandemic, the duration of the pandemic, and the government’s capacity to manage the pandemic has raised the saliency of tensions, organizations have been faced with the heightened urge to navigate short-term and long-term goals (see Slawinski later in the text). For organizations that depend on global supply chains (i.e., multinational corporations), 986863 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492620986863Journal of Management InquiryCarmine et al. research-article2021","PeriodicalId":47877,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Inquiry","volume":"30 1","pages":"138 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1056492620986863","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Paradox Approach to Organizational Tensions During the Pandemic Crisis\",\"authors\":\"Simone Carmine, C. Andriopoulos, Manto Gotsi, Charmine E J Härtel, A. Krzemińska, N. Mafico, Camille Pradies, H. Raza, Tatbeeq Raza-Ullah, Stephanie Schrage, Garima Sharma, Natalie Slawinski, Lea Stadtler, Andrea Tunarosa, Casper Winther-Hansen, J. Keller\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1056492620986863\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The COVID-19 pandemic is a massive exogenous shock that reverberated around the world, forcing all types of organizations to change overnight—from the local coffee shop to the international airline. As we try to make sense of the events surrounding the pandemic, one question that has perplexed both scholars and managers alike has been the extent to which this experience is qualitatively different from others. One area of research to turn to is research on organizational paradoxes, as the organizational paradox literature has focused extensively on how organizations experience change (e.g., Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Tracey, 2016). According to the paradox literature, major exogenous change impacts organizations by increasing the saliency of organizational tensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011), such as tensions between exploration and exploitation (e.g., Smith, 2014), cooperation and competition (e.g., Raza-Ullah et al., 2014), or control and collaboration (e.g., Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). The increased salience of tensions is critical for understanding organizations undergoing major change because tensions are both multi-level and multi-faceted, impacting actors ranging from the CEO to the front-line employee (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013) and involving responses that are cognitive (e.g., MironSpektor et al., 2018), emotional (e.g., Vince & Broussine, 1996), and material (e.g., Knight & Paroutis, 2017). By focusing attention on the tensions that organizations experience during the pandemic and their responses, the paradox literature can provide shards of clarity to this otherwise incomprehensible event. At the same time, unpacking the pandemic experience through a paradox lens can reveal new insights on organizational tensions, enabling scholars to gain sense of future, seemingly, senseless events. To address the organizational experience during the COVID-19 pandemic through a paradox lens, we explore five examples of tensions that have been especially salient during the pandemic crisis: the short-term versus long-term tensions (see Slawinski later in the text); social versus economic goal tensions (see Schrage later in the text), learning versus performing tensions (see Winther-Hansen, Carmine, Andriopoulos, and Gotsi later in the text); common good versus individual privacy tensions (see Raza and Keller later in the text) and agency tensions (see Krzeminska, Mafico, and Härtel, and Tunarosa later in the text). As uncertainty about the size and scope of the pandemic, the duration of the pandemic, and the government’s capacity to manage the pandemic has raised the saliency of tensions, organizations have been faced with the heightened urge to navigate short-term and long-term goals (see Slawinski later in the text). For organizations that depend on global supply chains (i.e., multinational corporations), 986863 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492620986863Journal of Management InquiryCarmine et al. research-article2021\",\"PeriodicalId\":47877,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"138 - 153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1056492620986863\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986863\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986863","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

2019冠状病毒病大流行是一场巨大的外生冲击,在全球范围内回荡,迫使所有类型的组织在一夜之间发生变化——从当地的咖啡店到国际航空公司。当我们试图弄清楚围绕大流行的事件时,困扰学者和管理人员的一个问题是,这种经历在多大程度上与其他经历有质的不同。一个可以转向的研究领域是对组织悖论的研究,因为组织悖论文献广泛关注组织如何经历变化(例如,Jay, 2013;l scher & Lewis, 2008;史密斯和特雷西,2016)。根据悖论文献,主要的外生变化通过增加组织紧张关系的显著性来影响组织(Smith & Lewis, 2011),例如探索与开发之间的紧张关系(例如,Smith, 2014),合作与竞争之间的紧张关系(例如,Raza-Ullah等人,2014),或控制与协作之间的紧张关系(例如,Sundaramurthy和Lewis, 2003)。紧张关系的日益突出对于理解正在经历重大变革的组织至关重要,因为紧张关系既是多层次的,也是多方面的,影响着从首席执行官到一线员工的行动者(Jarzabkowski等人,2013),并涉及认知(例如,MironSpektor等人,2018)、情感(例如,Vince和broussin, 1996)和物质(例如,Knight和Paroutis, 2017)的反应。通过关注各组织在大流行期间所经历的紧张局势及其应对措施,悖论文献可以为这一否则难以理解的事件提供一些清晰的信息。与此同时,通过悖论的视角来剖析大流行的经验,可以揭示对组织紧张局势的新见解,使学者们能够获得对未来看似毫无意义的事件的感觉。为了从悖论的角度分析2019冠状病毒病大流行期间的组织经验,我们探讨了在大流行危机期间特别突出的紧张局势的五个例子:短期紧张局势与长期紧张局势(见文后斯拉文斯基);社会与经济目标之间的紧张关系(见下文Schrage),学习与执行之间的紧张关系(见下文winter - hansen、Carmine、Andriopoulos和Gotsi);由于对大流行的规模和范围、持续时间以及政府管理大流行的能力的不确定性,加剧了紧张局势,各组织都面临着应对短期和长期目标的强烈愿望(见斯拉文斯基在下文)。对于依赖全球供应链的组织(即跨国公司),986863 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492620986863Journal of Management InquiryCarmine et al. research-article2021
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Paradox Approach to Organizational Tensions During the Pandemic Crisis
The COVID-19 pandemic is a massive exogenous shock that reverberated around the world, forcing all types of organizations to change overnight—from the local coffee shop to the international airline. As we try to make sense of the events surrounding the pandemic, one question that has perplexed both scholars and managers alike has been the extent to which this experience is qualitatively different from others. One area of research to turn to is research on organizational paradoxes, as the organizational paradox literature has focused extensively on how organizations experience change (e.g., Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Tracey, 2016). According to the paradox literature, major exogenous change impacts organizations by increasing the saliency of organizational tensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011), such as tensions between exploration and exploitation (e.g., Smith, 2014), cooperation and competition (e.g., Raza-Ullah et al., 2014), or control and collaboration (e.g., Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). The increased salience of tensions is critical for understanding organizations undergoing major change because tensions are both multi-level and multi-faceted, impacting actors ranging from the CEO to the front-line employee (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013) and involving responses that are cognitive (e.g., MironSpektor et al., 2018), emotional (e.g., Vince & Broussine, 1996), and material (e.g., Knight & Paroutis, 2017). By focusing attention on the tensions that organizations experience during the pandemic and their responses, the paradox literature can provide shards of clarity to this otherwise incomprehensible event. At the same time, unpacking the pandemic experience through a paradox lens can reveal new insights on organizational tensions, enabling scholars to gain sense of future, seemingly, senseless events. To address the organizational experience during the COVID-19 pandemic through a paradox lens, we explore five examples of tensions that have been especially salient during the pandemic crisis: the short-term versus long-term tensions (see Slawinski later in the text); social versus economic goal tensions (see Schrage later in the text), learning versus performing tensions (see Winther-Hansen, Carmine, Andriopoulos, and Gotsi later in the text); common good versus individual privacy tensions (see Raza and Keller later in the text) and agency tensions (see Krzeminska, Mafico, and Härtel, and Tunarosa later in the text). As uncertainty about the size and scope of the pandemic, the duration of the pandemic, and the government’s capacity to manage the pandemic has raised the saliency of tensions, organizations have been faced with the heightened urge to navigate short-term and long-term goals (see Slawinski later in the text). For organizations that depend on global supply chains (i.e., multinational corporations), 986863 JMIXXX10.1177/1056492620986863Journal of Management InquiryCarmine et al. research-article2021
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Inquiry, sponsored by the Western Academy of Management, is a refereed journal for scholars and professionals in management, organizational behavior, strategy, and human resources. Its intent is to explore ideas and build knowledge in management theory and practice, with a focus on creative, nontraditional research as well as key controversies in the field. The journal seeks to maintain a constructive balance between innovation and quality, and at the same time widely define the forms that relevant contributions to the field can take. JMI features six sections: Meet the Person, Provocations, Reflections on Experience, Nontraditional Research, Essays, and Dialog.
期刊最新文献
Managing Social Impact Bonds: Intermediary Work and Designing Institutional Infrastructure Wake up! Advancing the Conversation on Woke Labeling Psychedelics, Psychedelic-Assisted Therapy and Employees’ Wellbeing A Revisionist History Approach to the Study of Emotional Labor: Have We Forgotten Display Rules and Service Contexts? Back to the Future: What We’d Change in “Social Identity Theory and the Organization” (Academy of Management Review, 1989, 14, 20–39)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1