The senior leaders say it is a bitc

The senior leaders say it is a bitch to manage these
two types of businesses. It takes a great deal of time,
and they know there will be great outcomes, but
they will not see them for 12–24 months. They say
it’s like brushing your teeth—you’ve got to do it
every night, but you only know when you go to the
dentist whether it was worth the effort.
(General manager, IT Services strategic business unit)
Organizations are rife with competing demands.
At an organization’s highest level, senior leaders
face such pressures as exploring and exploiting
(March, 1991), integrating globally and adapting
locally (Marquis & Battilana, 2009), or maximizing
profits and improving social welfare (Margolis &
Walsh, 2003). Early organizational scholars acknowledged
these competing strategic demands,
but argued that success depended on leaders making
choices and maintaining a consistent commitment
to these decisions (Barnard, 1938; Thompson,
1967). Now, in the context of more complex and
global environments, organizations and their leaders
face pressures to address multiple, competing
strategic demands simultaneously (Jarzabkowski &
Sillince, 2007; Kraatz & Block, 2008; Smith, Binns,
& Tushman, 2010). Rather than choosing between
alternatives, long-term performance depends on
engaging them both. Yet, as the epigraph suggests,
doing so challenges and frustrates senior leaders.
Paradox theory offers insight into these challenges
(Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Paradoxes
denote tensions that coexist and persist over
time, posing competing demands that require ongoing
responses rather than one-time resolutions
(Lewis, 2000). Studies describe approaches to managing
paradoxes in general that include accepting
paradoxes as vital and learning to work through them
(Luscher & Lewis, 2008), accommodating contradictions
into novel synergies (Eisenhardt & Westcott,
1988; Rothenberg, 1979), or differentiating and integrating
to understand alternatives (Andriopoulos &
Lewis, 2009; Smith & Tushman, 2005). More recently,
Smith and Lewis (2011) have theorized a model incorporating
these various approaches that involves
managing paradox by accepting tensions as inherent,
and shifting between choosing and accommodating
alternatives over time. However, we still know little
about the specific nature and management of
strategic paradoxes, which—drawing from Lewis
(2000)—I define as contradictory, yet interrelated,
demands embedded in an organization’s
goals. Managing strategic paradoxes is particularly
challenging for top management teams, because
even as they might seek to maximize both

Results (English) 3:

高级领导人说，这是一个婊子来管理这些
两类企业。它需要大量的时间，而且他们知道
将会有很大的成果，但他们不会看到他们
–24月12。他们说
这就像刷牙你得
每天晚上，但你只知道当你去
牙医是否是值得的。
（总经理，IT服务的战略业务单位）
组织充斥着竞争的需求。在一个组织的最高水平
，高级领导人
面临这种压力作为勘探开发
（三月，1991），结合全局和局部适应
（侯爵&巴蒂推娜，2009），或最大
利润和提高社会福利（2003马戈利斯&
沃尔什，）。早期组织学者公认
这些竞争战略的要求，但认为
成功取决于领导者的选择和维护一个一致的承诺

这些决定（巴纳德，1938；汤普森，
1967）。现在，在更复杂的全球环境下
，组织及其领导人
面对压力以解决多个，竞争战略要求同时（
jarzabkowski&
西林斯，2007；Kraatz&块，2008；Smith，宾斯，
&Tushman，2010）。而不是选择长期绩效
之间，取决于他们两
接合。然而，作为题词表明，
这样挑战和挫折的高级领导人。
悖论的洞察这些挑战
（奎因1988；卡梅伦史密斯&&，刘易斯，2011）。
表示紧张并存的悖论持续
时间，构成竞争的需求，需要持续的反应而不是一次性决议

（刘易斯，2000）。研究描述管理
悖论一般包括接受
悖论作为重要的学习和工作，通过他们的方法（Luscher
&刘易斯，2008），容纳矛盾
到新的协同（艾森哈特&
韦斯科特，1988；罗森博格，1979），或微分和积分
理解方案（andriopoulos&
刘易斯，2009；史密斯&Tushman，2005）。最近，史密斯
和刘易斯（2011）理论，结合各种方法，包括

管理悖论的接受紧张的固有模式，并选择和容纳

之间随着时间的推移，移。然而，我们仍然知之甚少
“战略悖论
具体性质和管理，这从路易斯
（2000）-我定义为矛盾，但又相互关联的，要求在一个组织中的嵌入

目标。管理战略悖论特别
高层管理团队具有挑战性的，因为即使他们可能
寻求最大化