Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizations are rife with paradox, defined as the seemingly contradictory yet interdependent forces that persistently surface, often across organizational levels (Smith & Lewis, 2011). This presentation symposium, initiated in response to recent calls for greater scholarly attention to paradoxes’ micro-foundations (Miron-Spektor, Keller, Ingram, Lewis, & Smith, 2017; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016), brings together four diverse research papers about the psychological experience of organization paradox. The research includes empirical studies, a conceptual analysis, and a computer simulation, all designed to expand participants’ knowledge and pique their interest in studying paradoxical workplace phenomena through a micro lens. The symposium begins with two presentations about paradox mindset, a way of thinking that embraces paradox (Miron-Spektor et al., 2017; Smith & Tushman, 2005). One paper shows conditions under which a paradox mindset enables women to leverage work-family paradox to promote dual career-childrearing pursuits. The other identifies paradox mindset’s cognitive mechanisms and their interplay with a middle-ground approach in addressing paradoxical demands. The symposium then shifts to a different and timely individual variable, mindfulness, and makes connections to this growing literature. This conceptual paper delineates a psychological model of the cognitive and affective processes underlying the experiences of paradox and their effects on employee behavior; it also posits ways mindfulness may help and hinder employee coping with workplace paradoxes. The final presentation explores the paradox-creativity interaction. Using a novel computer-simulation paradigm, the authors show how a salient, vivid, and accessible paradox is beneficial for non-creative individuals yet harmful for creative ones; and, they offer advice for maximizing creative performance in a tensional workplace. The symposium closes with participant-presenter questions and lively discussion. The Value of Paradox Mindset in Promoting Work-Family Balance Presenter: Angela Ka-yee Leung; Singapore Management U. Presenter: Tengjiao Huang; Singapore Management U. How Paradox Mindsets Influence Information Processing: Evidence from an Eye- tracking Study Presenter: Erica Wen Chen; Nanyang Technological U. Presenter: Josh Keller; Nanyang Technological U. Presenter: George Christopoulos; Nanyang Technological U. Mindfulness and the Paradoxical Workplace Presenter: Xiaoxi Chang; Smith School of Business, Queen's U. Presenter: Susan E. Brodt; Smith School of Business, Queen's U. A Theory of the Relationship between Organizational Tensions and Creative Performance Presenter: Goran Calic; McMaster U. Presenter: Sebastien Hélie; Purdue U.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".