IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v40y2022i1p137-150.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dynamic stability: Unfolding dynamics of vicious cycles in a design firm

Author

Listed:
  • Lalaounis, Sotiris T.
  • Nayak, Ajit

Abstract

Paradoxes generate tensions and contradictions in organizations. In this paper, we contribute to the paradox literature by developing a complex systems approach to how organizational members experience tensions generated by the strategic intent paradox. Specifically, we focus on the unfolding dynamics of vicious cycles experienced by organizations dealing with paradox. Drawing on a case study of a design firm, we demonstrate how a vicious cycle forms through feedback loops and develops dynamic stability over time. On the basis of our findings, we develop a micro-level understanding of vicious cycles, which incorporates defence mechanisms at staff and senior management levels. Our main contribution is a theoretical model of unfolding dynamics of vicious cycles. Our model shows the importance of (1) feedback loops that underpin a vicious cycle and (2) importance of circular causality, reinforcing cycles, and micro-mechanisms in theorizing vicious cycles.

Suggested Citation

  • Lalaounis, Sotiris T. & Nayak, Ajit, 2022. "Dynamic stability: Unfolding dynamics of vicious cycles in a design firm," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 137-150.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:40:y:2022:i:1:p:137-150
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2021.04.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237321000542
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2021.04.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blake E. Ashforth & Kristie M. Rogers & Michael G. Pratt & Camille Pradies, 2014. "Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1453-1478, October.
    2. Michael Shayne Gary & Miles M. Yang & Philip W. Yetton & John D. Sterman, 2017. "Stretch Goals and the Distribution of Organizational Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-410, June.
    3. Janssens, Maddy & Steyaert, Chris, 1999. "The world in two and a third way out? The concept of duality in organization theory and practice," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 121-139, June.
    4. Karen Locke & Karen Golden-Biddle & Martha S. Feldman, 2008. "Perspective---Making Doubt Generative: Rethinking the Role of Doubt in the Research Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 907-918, December.
    5. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    6. Tse, Terence, 2013. "Paradox resolution: A means to achieve strategic innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 682-696.
    7. Gaim, Medhanie, 2018. "On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 497-518.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gaim, Medhanie & Wåhlin, Nils, 2016. "In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 33-44.
    2. Schneckenberg, Dirk & Roth, Steffen & Velamuri, Vivek K., 2023. "Deparadoxification and value focus in sharing ventures: Concealing paradoxes in strategic decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    3. Medhanie Gaim & Nils Wåhlin & Miguel Pina e Cunha & Stewart Clegg, 2018. "Analyzing competing demands in organizations: a systematic comparison," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Gaim, Medhanie, 2018. "On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 497-518.
    5. Dirk Schneckenberg & Steffen Roth & Vivek Velamuri, 2023. "Deparadoxification and value focus in sharing ventures: Concealing paradoxes in strategic decision-making," Post-Print hal-04056130, HAL.
    6. Waldkirch, Matthias, 2020. "Non-family CEOs in family firms: Spotting gaps and challenging assumptions for a future research agenda," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 11(1).
    7. Cunha, Miguel Pina e & Rego, Arménio & Clegg, Stewart & Jarvis, Walter P., 2021. "Stewardship as process: A paradox perspective," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 247-259.
    8. Roth, Steffen & Schneckenberg, Dirk & Valentinov, Vladislav & Kleve, Heiko, 2023. "Approaching management and organization paradoxes paradoxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive encasement strategy," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 191-198.
    9. Waldman, David A. & Putnam, Linda L. & Miron-Spektor, Ella & Siegel, Donald, 2019. "The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-6.
    10. Leonie Schulte, 2022. "Integrating immediate gains with sustainable performance: systematic review of paradox at the intersection of strategic management and innovation," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 1209-1247, December.
    11. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Tomasz Helbin & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Is Business Process Management (BPM) Ready for Ambidexterity? Conceptualization, Implementation Guidelines and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    13. Delin Zeng & Jingbo Hu & Taohua Ouyang, 2017. "Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    15. Anna Adamik & Michał Nowicki, 2019. "Pathologies and Paradoxes of Co-Creation: A Contribution to the Discussion about Corporate Social Responsibility in Building a Competitive Advantage in the Age of Industry 4.0," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-38, September.
    16. Mammassis, Constantinos S. & Kostopoulos, Konstantinos C., 2019. "CEO goal orientations, environmental dynamism and organizational ambidexterity: An investigation in SMEs," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 577-588.
    17. Hu, Jing & Wang, Yilin & Liu, Shengnan & Song, Mingshun, 2023. "Mechanism of latecomer enterprises’ technological catch-up in technical standards alliances – An ambidextrous innovation perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    18. Cannavale, Chiara & Esempio, Anna & Ferretti, Marco, 2021. "Up- and down- alliances: A systematic literature review," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(5).
    19. Ali, Abdul & Mancha, Ruben & Pachamanova, Dessislava, 2018. "Correcting analytics maturity myopia," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 211-219.
    20. Qiansong Zhang & Yingying Zhang & Taiwen Feng, 2024. "Impacts of paradox cognition and organizational unlearning on supply chain resilience: a perspective of paradox theory," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1022-1038, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:40:y:2022:i:1:p:137-150. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.