Costas Andriopoulos
  • Home
  • Biography
  • Blog
  • Research
    • Current Projects
    • Selected Academic Publications
    • Selected Applied Publications
    • Books
    • Professional Service
    • Presentations
    • Doctoral Supervision
    • Research Resources
  • Teaching
    • MBA and MSc
    • Visiting Posts and Executive Education
  • Portfolio
    • Advising
    • Investment Portfolio
    • Speaking Engagement >
      • Academic Workshops
  • News
  • Contact

Professional Service
I am actively involved with the business academic community by reviewing papers for highly rated journals and organizing tracks in leading conferences around the world. Please find more information on recent activities below.

Editorial Board Member
Long Range Planning
Creative Industries Journal
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation 
Creative Industries Journal
 

Special Issues
Guest Special Issue Editor for the International Marketing Review: “Special issue on Emerging perspectives in qualitative research in international marketing” (with Dr. Stephanie Slater)

Guest Special Issue Editor for the European Journal of Marketing: “Shaping the research agenda for corporate branding” (with Dr. Manto Gotsi and Professor TC Melewar)

Ad-Hoc Reviewer
Academy of Management Journal
American Psychologist
British Journal of Management
European Journal of Marketing
International Small Business Journal
Journal of Business Ethics
Journal of Management Studies
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Long Range Planning
Strategic Management Journal

Conference Tracks

AOM 2013

Picture



PDW Advancing Paradox Theory: Methods to Empirically Explore Organizational Tensions
Co-Organizers:
Marianne Lewis, University of Cincinnati
Costas Andriopoulos, Cardiff University
Wendy Smith, University of Delaware

Panelists:
Paula Jarzabkowski, Aston University/Cornell University
Quy Huy, INSEAD
Ella Miron-Spektor, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
Costas Andriopoulos, Cardiff University
Discussant:  Marianne Lewis, University of Cincinnati
Additional Break-Out Table Facilitators
Josh Keller, Nanyang Technological University
Amy Ingram, Clemson University
Luc Audebrand, Laval University

Abstract
Organization and environments have become more complex, global and hypercompetitive, surfacing a host of paradoxical tensions. Fast-paced environments demand consistent change and renewal, while requiring stability and control. Multiple stakeholder groups in varied regions of the world necessitate attention to divergent interests and beliefs. Complex societal level dynamics require organizations to embed multiple institutional logics with competing goals, values, and practices. Long term success depends on simultaneously embracing to tensions such as exploration and exploitation, stability and change, global opportunities and local needs, long term expectations and short term goals. Yet engaging the tensions is challenging, as these paradoxes cannot be resolved. Rather they require management strategies and practices to attend to these contradictory demands simultaneously.

Organizational scholars are increasingly exploring the nature and management of such paradoxical tensions. Yet we still lack adequate methodological and theoretical resources to do so. This PDW seeks to address this challenge. To do so, accomplished scholars will share their experience successfully publishing empirical studies of paradoxes, dualities, and dialectics in leading journals (i.e. ASQ, AMJ, Organization Science). We will then invite participants to engage in interactive, small-group conversations exploring challenges, opportunities, and approaches in their own work. Together, these conversations aim to build a deeper and more varied set of research design and analytical alternatives in this growing field of organization theory.

This PDW can appeal to a broad OMT audience, given the range of phenomenon and theoretical lenses associated with paradox studies. Moreover, as paradoxes span disciplines and levels of analysis, this PDW can attract scholars across multiple divisions (i.e. BPS, MOC, OB, and Research Methods).  

PDW Commuting to Campus: Strategies for Managing Remote Academic careers
Co-Organizers: 
Bernadine Dykes, University of Delaware
Wendy Smith, University of Delaware
Denise Loyd, MIT Sloan Management
Costas Andriopoulos, Cardiff University

Abstract
Living remotely from campus (i.e., living in a city or town outside of the campus location) has become a more common occurrence in the Academy. Many faculty members live remotely from campus for a variety of reasons. Further, as the internet becomes a more important tool for the delivery of courses and degree programs, even more faculty may live and work remotely from campus. Nonetheless, “remote” faculty members still must maintain a presence on campus to fulfil service and teaching requirements and meet other work expectations. Yet, managing travel to and from campus, “face-time” in the office, research productivity and personal commitments can be challenging. The purpose of this workshop is to discuss how faculty members who live remotely can effectively meet their personal and professional obligations.





EGOS 2012

Picture
Theme: Exploring the Paradoxes of Organizations and Organizing

(Wendy Smith, Marianne Lewis, Costas Andriopoulos)


Designing organizations raises multiple, interwoven tensions. By defining who we are, what we do, and how we do it, we inherently imply the opposite forces (Clegg, 2002; Ford & Backoff, 1988), resulting in such tensions as exploring vs. exploiting, centralization vs. decentralization, stability vs. flexibility, and control vs. freedom. Such opposing elements emerge in the nature of our organizations, as well as in our processes of organizing (Weick, 1979).

Traditionally, theorists have responded to organizational tensions via a contingency approach. Asking “under what conditions should we engage A or B?”, contingency theory emphasizes either/or tradeoffs. For example, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) identified structural distinctions of when to differentiate or integrate, whereas Tushman and Romanelli (1985) highlighted time periods to more effectively explore or exploit.

An alternative, paradoxical approach asks how organizations can sustain competing demands simultaneously. According to paradox theory, underlying tensions are inherent within organizations, and attending to these competing demands simultaneously enables long-run organizational success (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Rather than explore either/or tradeoffs, a paradox perspectives identifies both/and opportunities. By recognizing the ongoing persistence of underlying tensions, paradox theory points to the need for dynamic, adaptive organizations, and flexible, improvising routines (Clegg, Cuhna, & Cuhna, 2002; Smith & Lewis, 2011)}.

Increasingly research has adopted a paradox perspective, pointing to underlying tensions in the design of organizations and in the process of organizing, as well as exploring how to use design to effectively engage competing tensions simultaneously. For example, research on ambidexterity identifies how design features such as the organizations structure (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008) and context (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) can more effectively support tensions. Others have reflexively recognized the role of engaging competing demands to drive greater creativity and innovation into the design process (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Rothenberg, 1979). For example, paradox underlies the principles and process that enables the management of self-managed teams at LEGO (Luscher & Lewis, 2008).

In this subtheme, we seek to explore how paradox theory might shift our understanding of design. Specifically, we invite papers that explore some of the following, illustrative questions:

  • Underlying tensions – What competing tensions emerge in the design of organizations and in the process of organizing?
  • Strategies – How can we more effectively design organizations to embrace paradoxical tensions simultaneously?
  • Outcomes – What are the outcomes associated with different strategies for engaging paradoxical tensions? Alternatively, how does a paradox perspective effect definitions of organizational performance and success? For example, does a paradox lens necessitate shifting traditional definitions based on a profit motive to broader and pluralistic stakeholder assessments?
  • Methods – How can researchers explore paradoxes? How might paradox-oriented methods differ from dominant conventions aimed at identifying tradeoffs through central tendencies? What qualitative and quantitative approaches can enrich paradoxical understandings?
This subtheme extends the overall EGOS theme of Design!? by offering an alternative lens on the nature of design, as well as how to use design to enable more effective organizations. By exploring tensions and their management, we can offer new insights into the processes and structures of design, and explore the creativity that emerges from these tensions.

Works Cited

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation.Organization Science, 20(4): 696-717.
Clegg, S. R. 2002. General Introduction In S. R. Clegg (Ed.), Management and Organization Paradoxes: 1-10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
Clegg, S. R., Cuhna, J. V., & Cuhna, M. P. 2002. Management Paradoxes: A Relational View. Human Relations, 55(5): 483-503.
Ford, J., & Backoff, R. 1988. Organizational Change In and Out of Dualities and Paradox. In R. Quinn, & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management: 81-121. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The Antecedents, Consequences and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209-226.
Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organizations and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Luscher, L., & Lewis, M. 2008. Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 221-240.
O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. 2008. Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. In A. P. Brief, & B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28: 185-206: Elsevier.
Rothenberg, A. 1979. The Emerging Goddess. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2).
Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation. In B. M. Staw, & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7: 171-222. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. New York: McGraw Hill.



Social

    Contact me

Submit

                                                                                                                             

Copyright © 2013-2017
  • Home
  • Biography
  • Blog
  • Research
    • Current Projects
    • Selected Academic Publications
    • Selected Applied Publications
    • Books
    • Professional Service
    • Presentations
    • Doctoral Supervision
    • Research Resources
  • Teaching
    • MBA and MSc
    • Visiting Posts and Executive Education
  • Portfolio
    • Advising
    • Investment Portfolio
    • Speaking Engagement >
      • Academic Workshops
  • News
  • Contact