The Classification of Paradox and Paradox Problems in Management Science
1. School of Management, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
2. School of Statistics and Information, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics, Shanghai 201620, China
3. Research Institute of Extenics and Innovation Methods, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
4. School of Marxism, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
| Abstract: | Paradox and paradox problems are not only the basic concepts in management research, but also the foundational concepts in Extenics, Contradiction Management Science and Paradox Theory in Management. However, in the existing literature, different schools and fields did not make consensus on their definitions and classification, which makes it hard to carry out academic dialogue and communication. In order to address this gap, this paper gives a classification of paradox and paradox problems on the basis of reviewing and sorting out the relevant viewpoints of the three schools of Extenics, Contradiction Management Science and Paradox Theory in Management. According to whether the opposition of paradox is related to purpose, paradox can be divided into purpose-independent paradox and purpose-related paradox. Further, the purpose-related paradox can be divided into purpose-condition-opposite paradox and purpose-opposite paradox while the purpose-independent paradox can be divided into fact paradox and value paradox. In consistent to the above classification of paradox, there is a similar classification of paradox problems, which can be divided into purpose-condition-opposite paradox problems and purpose-opposite paradox problems as well as fact paradox problems and value paradox problems. The research results will help different schools and fields of management paradox research to carry out academic dialogue and better communication, and promote the in-depth development of paradox research in Management Science as well. |
| Keywords: | Paradox; Paradox Problems; Extenics; Contradiction Management Science; Paradox Theory in Management |
| DOI: | 10.57237/j.wjmst.2023.04.003 |
View:
Downloads:
Received: 26 October 2023
Accepted: 24 November 2023
Published Online: 9 December 2023
Funding
| 1. | 国家自然科学基金项目 (72071049) |
| 2. | 广东省哲学社会科学规划项目 (GD23XGL021) |
| 3. | 广东工业大学科学研究项目 (GXLX20210207) |
References
| [1] | 蔡文, 杨春燕, 何斌.可拓逻辑初步[M].科学出版社, 2003: 1-11. |
| [2] | 蔡文.物元模型及其应用 [M]. 科学技术出版社, 1994: 1-2, 51-63, 221. |
| [3] | 蔡文. 物元分析 [M]. 广东高等教育出版社, 1987: 164-165. |
| [4] | 杨春燕,李兴森.可拓学40年发展历程及研究进展 [J]. 广东工业大学学报, 2023, 40(6): 1-11. |
| [5] | 唐旭清.物元共轭性的哲学意义探讨[J].自然辩证法研究, 1996(10): 48-50+58. |
| [6] | 李占祥. 矛盾管理是管理学的理论基础 [J]. 经济理论与经济管理, 1997(6): 54-59. |
| [7] | 周禹, 刘光建, 唱小溪. 管理学“矛盾视角”的概念内涵与主要范式 [J]. 管理学报, 2019, 16(9): 1280-1289. |
| [8] | 李占祥, 杨杜, 谢培才. 矛盾管理学——企业可持续成长之路 [M]. 科学出版社, 2000: 50-56, 63-69. |
| [9] | Clegg S. R., Da Cunha J. V., E. Cunha M. P. Management Paradoxes: A Relational View [J]. Human Relations, 2002, 55(5): 483-503. |
| [10] | Smith W. K.., Tracey P. Institutional Complexity and Paradox Theory: Complementarities of Competing Demands [J]. Strategic Organization, 2016, 14(4): 455-466. |
| [11] | Fairhurst G. T., Smith W. K., Banghart S. G., et al. Diverging and Converging: Integrative Insights on a Paradox Meta-Perspective [J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2016, 10(1): 173-182. |
| [12] | Schad J., Lewis M. W., Raisch S., et al. Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward [J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2016, 10(1): 5-64. |
| [13] | Cameron K. S., Quinn R. E. Organizational Paradox and Transformation [M]. New York: Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, 1988. |
| [14] | Putnam L. L., Fairhurst G. T., Banghart S. Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach [J]. The Academy of Management Annals, 2016, 10(1): 65-171. |
| [15] | Smith W. K., Lewis M. W. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2011, 36(2): 381-403. |
| [16] | 郑莹. 组织管理中的矛盾问题研究综述 [J]. 南大商学评论, 2020, 17(2): 172-187. |
| [17] | 庞大龙, 徐立国, 席酉民. 文化双融视角下的组织悖论多元范式整合 [J]. 管理学报, 2019, 16(1): 17-26. |
| [18] | Li P. P. The Unique Value of Yin-Yang Balancing: A Critical Response [J]. Management & Organization Review, 2014, 10(2): 321-332. |
| [19] | Li X. Is “Yin-Yang Balancing” Superior to Ambidexterity as an Approach to Paradox Management? [J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2018: 1-16. |
| [20] | Sekiguchi T., Cuyper D. N. Addressing new leadership challenges in a rapidly changing world [J]. Applied Psychology, 2022, 72(4): 1741-1750. |
| [21] | 张书琛. 事实性判断•价值性判断•实践性判断——论辩证思维判断的三种类型和三个发展阶段 [J]. 内蒙古民族师院学报 (社会科学汉文版), (03): 41-47+91. |
| [22] | 高来源. 从杜威“实践判断的逻辑”到当代实践哲学范式的建构 [J]. 理论探讨, 2016(6): 58-63. |
| [23] | 惠永照. 论康德实践判断中的想象力 [J]. 道德与文明, 2017(05): 77-83. |
| [24] | 邓群钊, 周利平, 付莲莲等. 转换桥方法与应用研究评述 [J]. 广东工业大学学报, 2013, 30(1): 1-6. |
| [25] | 董翠玲, 杨春燕. 转换桥方法的改进及其应用 [J]. 广东工业大学学报, 2023, 40(5): 15-20. |
| [26] | 王凤彬, 张雪. 用纵向案例研究讲好中国故事: 过程研究范式、过程理论化与中西对话前景 [J]. 管理世界, 2022, 38(06): 191-213. |
Join the Editorial Board
We invite active, qualified and high profile scientists and researchers to join as Editorial Board Members.
Join UsBecome a Reviewer
Scholars with a strong interest in reviewing are invited to join the reviewer panel to ensure the quality of the research to be published.
Join Us