IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v16y2005i5p522-536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy K. Smith

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Morgan Hall, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Michael L. Tushman

    (Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Morgan Hall, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

Sustained organizational performance depends on top management teams effectively exploring and exploiting. These strategic agendas are, however, associated with contradictory organizational architectures. Using the literature on paradox, contradictions, and conflict, we develop a model of managing strategic contradictions that is associated with paradoxical cognition—senior leaders and/or their teams (a) articulating a paradoxical frame, (b) differentiating between the strategy and architecture for the existing product and those for innovation, and (c) integrating between those strategies and architectures. We further argue that the locus of paradox in top management teams resides either with the senior leader or with the entire team. We identify a set of top management team conditions that facilitates a team’s ability to engage in paradoxical cognitive processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:5:p:522-536
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    3. Marcie J. Tyre & Eric von Hippel, 1997. "The Situated Nature of Adaptive Learning in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 71-83, February.
    4. Hubert Gatignon & Michael L. Tushman & Wendy Smith & Philip Anderson, 2002. "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1103-1122, September.
    5. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Sarah Kaplan & Fiona Murray & Rebecca Henderson, 2003. "Discontinuities and senior management: assessing the role of recognition in pharmaceutical firm response to biotechnology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 203-233, April.
    7. Nelson P. Repenning, 2002. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 109-127, April.
    8. Sull, Donald N., 1999. "The Dynamics of Standing Still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the Radial Revolution," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 430-464, October.
    9. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    10. Sull, Donald N & Tedlow, Richard S & Rosenbloom, Richard S, 1997. "Managerial Commitments and Technological Change in the US Tire Industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 6(2), pages 461-501, March.
    11. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    12. Beverly Virany & Michael L. Tushman & Elaine Romanelli, 1992. "Executive Succession and Organization Outcomes in Turbulent Environments: An Organization Learning Approach," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 72-91, February.
    13. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    14. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    15. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    16. Anne Sigismund Huff, 1997. "A Current and Future Agenda for Cognitive Research in Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 947-952, November.
    17. Karen A. Bantel & Susan E. Jackson, 1989. "Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(S1), pages 107-124, June.
    18. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    19. Daniel R. Denison & Robert Hooijberg & Robert E. Quinn, 1995. "Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(5), pages 524-540, October.
    20. Ikujiro Nonaka & Ryoko Toyama, 2002. "A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(5), pages 995-1009, November.
    21. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    22. Anderson, Philip & Tushman, Michael L, 2001. "Organizational Environments and Industry Exit: The Effects of Uncertainty, Munificence and Complexity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(3), pages 675-711, September.
    23. Ruth Wageman, 2001. "How Leaders Foster Self-Managing Team Effectiveness: Design Choices Versus Hands-on Coaching," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(5), pages 559-577, October.
    24. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
    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. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Clark G. Gilbert, 2006. "Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 150-167, February.
    4. Justin J. P. Jansen & Gerard George & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2008. "Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 982-1007, July.
    5. Pettus, Michael L. & Kor, Yasemin Y. & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2007. "A Theory of Change in Turbulent Environments: The Sequencing of Dynamic Capabilities Following Industry Deregulation," Working Papers 07-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    6. Brion, Sébastien & Mothe, Caroline & Sabatier, Mareva, 2007. "What impacts more on innovation : Organizational context or individual competences ?," MPRA Paper 10595, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    8. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe & Maréva Sabatier, 2010. "The Impact Of Organisational Context And Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 151-178.
    9. Sunkee Lee, 2019. "Learning-by-Moving: Can Reconfiguring Spatial Proximity Between Organizational Members Promote Individual-level Exploration?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 467-488, May.
    10. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    11. Avimanyu Datta, 2011. "Combining Networks, Ambidexterity and Absorptive Capacity to Explain Commercialization of Innovations: A Theoretical Model from Review and Extension," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(4), pages 2-25, December.
    12. Lin, H.E., 2010. "Effects of strategy, context and antecedents and capabilities on the outcomes of ambidexterity : A multiple country case study of the US, China and Taiwan," Other publications TiSEM c0eab7d6-d6c7-4b55-9822-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Peeters, T.J.G., 2013. "External knowledge search and use in new product development," Other publications TiSEM 300ebb34-b090-4210-b95e-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Mary J. Benner, 2010. "Securities Analysts and Incumbent Response to Radical Technological Change: Evidence from Digital Photography and Internet Telephony," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(1), pages 42-62, February.
    15. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    16. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    17. Pedota, Mattia & Cicala, Francesco & Basti, Alessio, 2024. "A Wild Mind with a Disciplined Eye: Unleashing Human-GenAI Creativity Through Simulated Entity Elicitation," OSF Preprints 3bn95, Center for Open Science.
    18. Jiewei Zu & Jianan Wang & Jun Ma, 2022. "Ambidexterity in a Rapidly Changing Environment of China: Top Management Team Decision Making and Sustained Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    19. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Harry R. Commandeur & Henk W. Volberda, 2007. "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 20-38, February.
    20. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:16:y:2005:i:5:p:522-536. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.