Marketing Paradoxes
Introduction
Michael Ahearne and Son K. Lam seek theory related input via a brief survey on marketing paradoxes
: : : Posting
: : dialog
Dear Colleagues,
Prof. Michael Ahearne and Doctoral Student Son K. Lam are conducting a study to document and develop a typology of marketing paradoxes. Poole and Van de Ven (1989) define paradoxes as tensions, oppositions, and contradictions between theories that create conceptual difficulties. More formally, Cameron and Quinn (1988) define paradoxes as contradictory, mutually exclusive elements that are present and operate equally at the same time. However, Gupta, Smith and Shalley (2006) posit that a paradox might be depicted as two ends of a continuum (either/or) or orthogonal (possible co-existence).
Examples of paradoxes abound in the strategy literature, including interrelated phenomena such as exploitation/exploration (March 1991), core capabilities/core rigidities (Leonard-Barton 1992; Slotegraff and Dickson 2004), integration/specialization (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967), and the famed “creative destruction” (Schumpeter 1934), to name just a few. At the meso and micro levels, the management literature has examined paradoxes of empowerment/control (O’Connor 1995), belonging/detaching (Smith and Berg 1987), and role conflict (Kahn et al. 1964). Marketing research using this paradoxical lens remains scarce. Representative marketing researchers who explicitly examine paradoxes include Mick and Fournier (1998); Thompson and Haytko (1997); Mick and Buhl (1992); Fournier, Dobscha, and Mick (1998); Homburg and Jensen (2007); Slotegraff and Dickson (2004); and Dittrich, Jaspers, van der Valk, and Wynstra (2006).
Paradoxical thinking is beneficial because it overcomes the unidirectionality, linearity, and consistency prevalent in traditional thinking (Cameron and Quinn 1988). We believe that marketing as a discipline has much to contribute to the surging interest in paradoxical thinking. As part of our investigation of “paradoxical” marketing that involves the marketing academia, practitioners, and a search of the extant marketing literature, we conduct this brief survey among ELMAR members to collect both published and unpublished evidence of “marketing paradoxes.” We will highly appreciate your participation in a short survey at the following link.
Your feedback is extremely important to this theory-building process. We will be glad to share with you our preliminary results once available.
Contact: Son Lam, email: slam5@uh.edu.
= = = = =
Best,
Son Lam