1 INTRODUCTION

As they operate in increasingly complex, dynamic, and competitive global environments, contemporary organizations are faced with numerous dyadic and persistent demands that can generate paradoxical tensions (Gaim, Wåhlin, Cunha & Clegg, 2018; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Collaboration and competition, creativity and efficiency, control and autonomy, innovation and tradition, stability and change, quality and cost, global and local strategies, commercial and social logic, long and short term are dichotomous abstractions that exemplify such demands in the organizational context (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Gaim et al., 2018; Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith & Lewis, 2018; Schad, Lewis, Raisch & Smith, 2016; Waldman, Putnam, Miron-Spektor & Siegel, 2019).

in

Despite the growing academic interest evidenced in the last decade (which has led to the emergence of a rich body of literature), the field of organizational tensions still lacks theoretical consolidation (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019; Gaim, 2018; Gaim et al., 2018). The plurality of nomenclatures used to define them – dilemmas, trade-offs, dialectics, dualisms, dualities, and paradoxes – generates ambiguities, impairs conceptual clarity, and biases managerial decision-making (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019; Gaim et al., 2018; Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart, 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011). For this reason, it is essential to outline the contributions of research already carried out to give impetus to the production of new works that can strengthen the understanding of the subject.

In this sense, the present study proposes to carry out a bibliometric mapping of the scientific production built around organizational tensions, considering the publications indexed in the Scopus platform during the last twenty years. Therefore, we intend to answer the following research questions: (1) How has the field of organizational tensions evolved in terms of scientific productivity? (2) What research themes make up the field of organizational tensions? and (3) What is the trend of scientific publications in the field of organizational tensions?

To answer the first question, general bibliometric indexes are considered, such as the number of publications, the most productive authors and countries, and the most influential journals and articles. Co-word analysis, in turn, is the resource used to answer the other questions. Results are structured with the aid of RStudio's Bibliometrix package, which provides a comprehensive set of tools for quantitative research in bibliometrics (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017).

Given the growth of academic interest in organizational tensions, research can help the scientific community to understand the conjuncture of productions on the subject, stimulating the emergence of debates and prolific works. In addition, it can serve managers as a guide for identifying and managing these tensions, which, in turn, intensify in the face of the current pandemic scenario (Carmine et al., 2021).

The work is divided into four sections, in addition to this introduction: the second includes a discussion of the literature on organizational tensions; the third presents a detailed description of the methodological procedures adopted; the fourth exposes the results achieved from the data analysis. Then, the final considerations are presented, as well as the main limitations and suggestions for future research.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Organizational actors face tensions as they face incompatibilities generated by contradictory, opposing, conflicting, and interrelated demands. Such tensions are defined as inducing oppositions stress, anxiety, discomfort, or rigidity that emerge when managers make decisions or provide answers to everyday managerial challenges (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019; Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Putnam et al., 2016).

As it is considered a generalized, multilevel, and multifaceted phenomenon (Gaim, 2018; Jarzabkowski, Lê & Van de Ven, 2013; Smith & Lewis, 2011), explored in different contexts in the organizational literature, the concept of tension is often used by researchers broadly and comprehensively, being used to signify a large part of the dyadic demands that permeate organizations (Putnam et al., 2016): dilemmas, trade-offs, dialectics, dualisms, dualities, paradoxes (Gaim et al., 2018; Putnam et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

However, it is necessary to differentiate these concepts (Figure 1). The indiscriminate use of terminologies in the theoretical field can prevent conceptual consolidation and harm organizational practice, providing ambiguous and confusing guidelines on executive actions and responses (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Gaim et al., 2018).

Considering that the organizational environment is essentially paradoxical (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), it is ideal that all the contradictory demands emerging in organizational contexts be framed as paradoxical. Although challenging and complex (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Gaim et al., 2018), this approach helps managers meet these demands simultaneously by emphasizing the benefits arising from their coexistence (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

From a paradoxical perspective, Smith and Lewis (2011) propose a dynamic equilibrium model in which organizational tensions are categorized into four paradoxical typologies: learning (knowledge), belonging (identity), organization (processes), and performance (goals) – detailed in Table 1.

Tensions (inherent in organizations or cognitively/socially constructed) operate both between and within these typologies. In addition, they can exist on multiple levels (individual, dyad, group, project, or organization), reinforcing, intertwining, and nesting in a cascade. Which highlights the richness and scope of adopting a paradoxical perspective for their understanding (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

Responses to tensions can be defined as the actions and reactions that emerge from the decision-making of organizational actors in the face of contradictions (Miguel Pina e Cunha & Putnam, 2019). Among the myriad of approaches indicated to respond to complex situations in organizations, three stand out: either-or; both-and; and more-than (Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016).

The either-or approach considers the contradictory poles of competing demands as distinct phenomena that function independently. In this case, the actors: react defensively, denying the existence of these poles; they select or favor one of the two poles; and separate or segment opposite poles (Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Putnam et al., 2016). Initially, such strategies reduce discomfort and anxiety, bringing short-term relief (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). However, they can intensify long-term tensions, resulting in vicious cycles that reinforce counterproductive thinking and behavior (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Schad et al., 2016; Sivunen & Putnam, 2020; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

In the both-and approach, opposite poles are accepted as inseparable and interdependent. Therefore, the most common answers are paradoxical thinking, which advocates the increase in cognitive abilities to recognize, question, and reflect on tensions; vacillation, or spiral inversion, in which there is an alternation between the poles at different times or in different contexts; and integration and balance, which seeks a compromise, often through a forced fusion between opposites, generating a point of balance to meet competing demands (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). Because it is holistic and dynamic, such an approach allows us to respond to both sides of the paradox, creating possibilities for dealing with ongoing tensions (Lewis & Smith, 2014).

Finally, the more-than approach seeks to connect opposite poles through a creative synergy and involves strategies of: a) resignification (opposites in a reformulated whole, in which they are no longer opposed) and transcendence (opposites in a new relationship, withdrawn from of a paradoxical system or expanded beyond organizational boundaries); b) connection (interactive practices to dynamically and continuously engage opposites), third spaces (places for communicative practices) and dialogue (which enables the equal appreciation of opposites); c) and reflective practice (based on praxis that holds opposites together through awareness of dualities) and "serious fun" (humor, irony, and comic relief for developing reflective practices) (Putnam et al., 2016; Waldman et al., 2019).

In practical terms, responses to organizational tensions are likely to be combined, with varying effects in different contexts (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). However, despite both-and and more-than approaches triggering positive effects that lead to virtuous cycles (Sivunen & Putnam, 2020; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The current literature has emphasized the relevance of the former (Wenzel, Koch, Cornelissen, Rothmann & Senf, 2019), encouraging actors to consider tensions as paradoxical forces to ensure a dynamic balance that provides high performance, lasting and sustainable (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

3 METHODOLOGY

The mapping of scientific production about organizational tensions was carried out through technique of bibliometric analysis, which consists of the application of a set of statistical methods to delineate the structure of scientific fields through the performance of publication (authors and institutions) and the dynamics of these fields (Koseoglu, 2016; Zupic & Čater, 2015).

To ensure transparency and systematization to the operationalization of the research, the stages of development of the methodological process (Figure 2) were outlined based on the recommendations proposed by Zupic and Čarter (2015). The authors indicate a workflow to conduct scientific mapping studies in management and organization.

The database was generated in March 2021 by searching the Scopus platform for documents that contained the main keywords linked to the field of organizational tensions, cited by Smith and Lewis (2011): organizational tension, paradoxical tension, and organizational paradox. In addition to being the largest database of abstracts and citations of peer-reviewed literature, Scopus offers a comprehensive overview of production in the areas of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, arts, and humanities, constituting a valuable source for carrying out bibliometric mappings (Khiste & Paithankar, 2017; Moral-Muñoz, Herrera-Viedma, Santisteban-Espejo & Cobo, 2020; Zupic & Čater, 2015).

Initially, the search returned 398 documents published between 2000 and 2021. For refinement purposes, English-language articles belonging to the "Business, Management and Accounting" category were filtered, totaling 195 articles. Purification of the database followed (identification and exclusion of 1 repeated article), resulting in a final database composed of 194 articles.

For operationalization purposes, the complete bibliographic data were exported in the BibTeX (.bib) file format. Later, the Bibliometrix package (version 3.0.4) was installed and loaded in the RStudio environment (version 1.4.1103) to support launching the Biblioshiny application (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). Indicated for scientific mappings, Biblioshiny stands out as one of the complete research tools related to bibliometrics and scientometrics, having an intuitive interface. As well as a wide range of functionalities, analyzes, and graphs (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020; Moreira, Guimarães & Tsunoda, 2020).

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

After outlining the methodologies used in the studies that make up the database, the following aspects related to the scientific mapping of organizational tensions were analyzed: the number of publications, the most productive authors and countries, the most influential journals and articles, and, finally, the keywords used by researchers in the field.

4.1 Database Overview

Reading the titles, abstracts, keywords (and, in some cases, the entire document) allowed the identification of the methodologies used by the authors in 187 of the 194 articles that make up the sample, since 7 of them had access restrictions that made it impossible to categorize them into the typologies shown in the chart in Figure 3.

In general, the overview of the methodologies employed replicates findings from previous studies (Schad et al., 2016; Wendy Smith, Erez, Jarvenpaa, Lewis & Tracey, 2017). It is observed that the theoretical field of organizational tensions is dominated by qualitative research, used to support approximately 64% of the selected articles. The predominance of the use of qualitative empirical data is collected through a wide variety of research designs, such as case studies, ethnographies, action research (Park, 2020; Pradies, Tunarosa, Lewis & Courtois, 2020; Schneider, Bullinger & Brandl, 2020). Can be explained, in part, by the very nature of tensions, understood as dynamic phenomena that are socially constructed from the interaction of actors belonging to the organizational system (Lewis, 2000). Theoretical studies, in turn, represent about 24% of the analyzed studies. The lack of consensus to define key concepts (Gaim et al., 2018) may be one of the determining factors for this configuration.

The application of quantitative or mixed methods is still inexpressive, being identified in only 12% of the articles that make up the database. Hypothesis tests, structural equation modeling, scale development (Beus, Lucianetti & Arthur, 2020; Kherrazi, 2020; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), among other quantitative techniques, appear moderately in the analyzed studies. For this reason, represent promising research opportunities that can help in the development of the field of organizational tensions (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Wendy Smith et al., 2017).

4.2 Number of Publications

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the 194 publications indexed in Scopus related to organizational tensions from 2000 to the date of consultation. Analyzing the annual variation of the total number of works, there is a percentage growth rate of around 15%, with a consolidated increase in scientific production in recent years (2015-present), a period in which more than 80% of the selected articles were published.

The oldest article in the database, by Asakawa (2001), also one of the most cited, focuses on organizational tensions that arise in internationalization contexts of Japanese multinationals. This work begins a timid scientific production on the subject, extending until 2014, totaling 36 articles (approximately 18% of the total production).

Despite the slight variations, there is a trend of growth in scientific production, whose peak was reached in 2020, when 37 works were published - about 19% of the total records. In 2021, the number of indexed articles (14) remained significant, which suggests that the subject remains in evidence in the international management literature.

4.3 Most productive authors

Among the 444 authors identified, eight were considered the most productive in the field (three or more publications) in the period from 2000 to 2021, responsible for publishing approximately 17% of the total records analyzed. In general, these authors investigate different topics related to organizational tensions, such as ambidexterity (Zimmermann, Raisch & Cardinal, 2018); culture (Keller, Wen Chen & Leung, 2018); organizational discourse (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2019); social business (Smith, Gonin & Besharov, 2013); paradox theory (Gaim et al., 2018; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011); among others (Table 2).

In terms of scientific productivity, researchers Josh Keller, Marianne Lewis, and Sebastian Raisch stand out for developing five works over the period established for data collection. Regarding total citations, Marianne Lewis and Wendy Smith are the two most influential researchers in the field, surpassing the 1600 mark.

Figure 5 shows the publication flow of the most productive authors. The size of the circles represents the number of articles, while the intensity of the blue color reflects the impact of the research in terms of the number of citations. In this sense, it is clear that there is a concentration of production evidenced in the last decade.

The oldest work on the chart, from 2011, has been widely cited (more intense blue color). Conducted in collaboration by Smith and Lewis, the study presents a dynamic equilibrium model for managing paradoxical tensions (Smith & Lewis, 2011). In turn, the most recent (and therefore least cited) articles, published in 2021 by Keller and Raisch, address issues related to culture in paradox theory (Mafico, Krzeminska, Härtel & Keller, 2021), organizational tensions generated during periods of pandemic crisis (Carmine et al., 2021) and in automation processes, as well as the use of artificial intelligence in organizations (Raisch & Krakowski, 2021).

4.4 Most productive countries

In Figure 6, which shows the world's scientific production on organizational tensions, the territories with the most intense blue tones are responsible for the highest publication records. It appears, therefore, that the topic is widespread around the world, with significant relevance in the United States of America (56), United Kingdom (42), Australia (22), and Sweden (21), considered the most productive countries in the selected base.

In the Brazilian and Latin American contexts, organizational tensions have been little explored in scientific research. This fact is confirmed by the scarcity of publications resulting from the search for the same terms used in this work in the SciELO database, which indexes relevant journals from countries belonging to Latin America (Packer, 2010). These data suggest that, despite being a very relevant topic in the international literature, organizational tensions remain underexplored in Brazil and Latin America. There is, therefore, a need to develop studies that investigate the phenomenon in local contexts, since these tensions "[...] are at the center of organizational research" (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 394) and represent continuous challenges to the understanding of how organizations work (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013).

4.5 Most influential scientific journals

The 194 publications were published through 117 scientific journals, the most relevant of which in the field are presented in Table 3. Among these, Organization Studies, Human Relations, the Journal of Business Ethics, and the Journal of Business Research stand out for having high productivity levels, with five or more publications about organizational tensions.

The Academy of Management Review distinguishes itself from other journals in terms of citation numbers, with representative publications widely disseminated by the scientific community. It is worth noting that Organization Science and the Academy of Management Annals also have a significant impact on the field, with citation numbers exceeding 500.

The scope of journals with the most significant impact in the field of organizational tensions (Table 4) is broad and diverse, encompassing multidisciplinary and multiparadigm research that addresses a wide variety of topics related to the phenomenon. Furthermore, the rules adopted for the submission and selection of papers increase the reliability and relevance of these sources for organizational science and practice.

4.6 Most influential articles

Considering the citation scores of the publications, Table 5 presents the list of the ten most cited articles in the field of organizational tensions. Considering that 80% of these works were produced from 2010 onwards, the emergence of the theme in the last decade can be seen.

The article with the highest number of citations is Smith and Lewis (2011). Through a literature review, the authors categorize organizational tensions into four types (belonging, learning, organization, and performance) and propose a model of the dynamic balance of paradox management that can help managers search for corporate sustainability (Smith & Lewis, 2011).

Similarly structured, the second most influential article by Schad et al. (2016) presents six key themes that make up a metatheory of the paradox in the field of organizational studies, including an agenda to guide future researchers towards the consolidation of the theme in different currents of management science (Schad et al., 2016).

In the third most cited paper, with a theoretical approach, Fiol (2002) presents a multiphase, multilevel model of identity transformation that capitalizes on paradoxical tensions. Reveals the processes through which individual and organizational levels of identity interact over time. Language, in this context, plays a critical role in managing these tensions (Fiol, 2002).

In the fourth most relevant article, Putnam et al. (2016) implement a literature review on the contradictions, dialectics, paradoxes, and tensions that permeate organizations. In addition to presenting the five key dimensions constituting a metatheory of paradox, the authors establish a typology of alternative responses to organizational tensions and present areas for future research on paradox studies (Putnam et al., 2016).

Occupying the fifth position in the ranking, the article by Wareham, Fox, and Giner (2014) focuses on the dynamics of technology ecosystems. Based on a case study, the researchers identify the tensions pertinent to technological ecosystems, highlighting the role of ecosystem governance for the consolidation of generative outcomes (Wareham, Fox & Giner, 2014).

The sixth most cited article is a case study and an integrated analysis of blog articles. Eaton et al. (2015) address service systems with digital technology, highlighting the challenge of dealing with the paradoxical tension between the generative and democratizing force of technology and the monopolistic and controlling force of digital infrastructure. The complex context is marked by border resources that play a role critical in tension management (Eaton, Elaluf-Calderwood, Sørensen & Yoo, 2015).

The seventh article with the most significant impact, by Jarzabkowski et al. (2013), is structured from a longitudinal case study. The authors present a process model, clarifying how managers respond to paradoxical tensions in the organizational environment during a phase of corporate reconstruction (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013).

The article by Asakawa (2001), articulated from a mixed methodological perspective, is the oldest study and the eighth most mentioned in the database. It explores the nature of organizational tensions that emerge in the internationalization of Japanese multinational companies, focusing mainly on autonomy-control relationships and information sharing between headquarters and subsidiaries (Asakawa, 2001).

Through a multi-year case study, the authors of the ninth article examine the Information Technology (IT) transformation program in a commercial bank, identifying and explaining the paradoxical tensions managers face in this process. At the end of the study, the authors presents an integrative model that illustrates the dynamic nature of the ambidexterity of the IT transformation program (Gregory, Keil, Muntermann & Mähring, 2015).

Although recent, the article by Miron-Spektor et al. (2018) is the tenth most relevant in the database. In a mixed methodological perspective, the study presents a theoretical model that identifies conditions capable of accentuating the experience of organizational tensions and investigates the importance of paradoxical mentality to unlock the positive potential in facing these tensions (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018).

In general, most of these studies contribute to solidifying the theoretical knowledge of the field, approaching the microfoundations of organizational tensions, their constitutive dimensions, key themes, typologies, and models that collaborate for adequate management of the phenomenon (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011)

Recent criticisms emphasize the fundamental need for researchers to go beyond the initial categorization proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011) (Miguel Pina e Cunha & Putnam, 2019; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), in organizational research circles. The work has been extremely successful and applied in a variety of contexts (Putnam et al., 2016), presenting contributions that reverberate to this day in the context of organizational tensions.

4.7 Co-Word Analysis

Considering the 200 keywords most frequently used by the authors – with a criterion of at least 15 occurrences – the thematic map (Figure 7) provides an overview of the leading research interests that involve organizational tensions. On the map, the clusters (research themes) are structured and classified according to two dimensions: centrality, which delimits the importance of a theme in the development of the theoretical field; and density, which concerns the internal cohesion of the words that make up a theme (Cobo, López-Herrera, Herrera-Viedma & Herrera, 2011).

The upper left quadrant encompasses very specialized, peripheral themes that have secondary relevance to researchers (Cobo et al., 2011). Therefore, the cluster called organizing, which deals with issues related to the decision-making process and business performativity (Lewis, 2000), is a subject investigated in isolation, with marginal relevance to the scientific field of organizational tensions.

The lower left quadrant encompasses relatively developed and marginal themes, emerging or disappearing (Cobo et al., 2011). In this sense, the internet and paradox theory themes may represent research trends or declining topics in the organizational literature of tensions. Thus, due to the low levels of centrality and density, it is inferred that the internet is a subject that researchers less and less address. On the other hand, the relevance that the theory of paradox (close to the lines of centrality and density) has acquired in recent years indicates its character of a rising theme, being considered a relevant alternative concerning the theory of contingency in the studies of organizational tensions (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

In turn, the upper right quadrant covers well explored topics relevant to the structuring of a research field (Cobo et al., 2011). Therefore, the control, innovation, and social enterprise clusters, which have high centrality and density, are considered the motor themes in organizational tensions (Table 6).

Finally, in the lower right quadrant are located the basic, transversal, general and essential themes for that field (Cobo et al., 2011), detailed in Table 7: ambidexterity, corporate social responsibility (CSR), paradox, and organizational tensions.

Considering the occurrence of 5 keywords used by the authors per year as standardization criteria, Figure 8 shows the trend topics in organizational tensions. It is noteworthy that the height of the word represents a greater intensity in its use, while its position on the suitable evidence the recent use of the term (Srisusilawati, Rusydiana, Sanrego & Tubastuvi, 2021).

It appears that the driving (control, innovation and social enterprise) and basic themes (ambidexterity, corporate social responsibility, paradox and organizational tensions) are identified in the thematic map as the main interests of researchers since 2017. the research trends of the investigated field. In addition, topics such as governance, stakeholders, paradox management, human resources management, project management, hybrid organizations, and legitimacy are gaining relevance in recent years.

Given the variety of topics, evidenced from the analysis of the authors' co-words, it is clear that organizational tensions constitute a multidisciplinary scientific field, very fruitful and diversified. Despite this, there is a prevalence of some gaps that can be elucidated with subsequent research.

First, future researchers should critically reflect on the indiscriminate use of typologies prescribed by paradox theory to frame competing demands that arise in organizational environments (Miguel Pina e Cunha & Putnam, 2019; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). In this sense, studies on tensions considered the complexity of the various business formats, as well as the dynamic and multifaceted essence of these elements in different operating contexts (Gaim, 2018; Jarzabkowski, Lê & Van de Ven, 2013; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Thus, they seek to identify new categories of paradoxes that can integrate and even expand the initial classification proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011).

Secondly, the geographic context in which organizations operate has the potential to interfere with their functioning as a whole, demanding the development of empirical and regional research that pays attention to the heterogeneity of the institutional environments in which these enterprises are inserted (Ismail & Johnson, 2019; Park, 2020; Schad et al., 2016). Considering, therefore, that the field of tensions remains little explored in Latin America, the investigation of the phenomenon in local organizational contexts represents promising research opportunities for the improvement of the theoretical bases of this field.

Finally, it is observed that there is an emphasis on the delimitation of typologies, collective approaches, and results of these tensions, as pointed out by Schad et al. (2016). Therefore, the theoretical field can benefit from conducting research that uses procedural and dynamic approaches (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), highlighting, whenever possible, the interrelation between different paradoxes and investigating other levels of analysis, such as the individual (Schad et al., 2016).

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The present study aimed to conduct a bibliometric mapping of scientific production built around organizational tensions. To this end, English-language articles indexed in the "Business, Management and Accounting" category of the Scopus platform were considered, from 2000 to 2021, analyzed with the help of the Biblioshiny software from RStudio.

First, there was a predominance of qualitative and theoretical research, covering almost all analyzed studies. In this sense, the use of quantitative or mixed methods can represent promising research opportunities, contributing to the development of the field.

Considering the first research question, the results indicate an increase in academic production in the last decade, with a more expected growth evidenced in the last five years. Regarding productivity, the researchers Marianne Lewis and Wendy Smith, who also have high citation levels, should be highlighted. The United States of America, followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Sweden, are the most productive countries globally, responsible for about 72% of the total production of articles in the field of organizational tensions.

Among the most relevant journals, the Organization Studies, the Human Relations, the Journal of Business Ethics, and the Journal of Business Research stand out for their high levels of academic productivity; the Academy of Management Review, the Organization Science, and the Academy of Management Annals, in turn, have a significant impact on this theoretical field, with relevant publications and highly disseminated by the scientific community.

Analyzing the list of the most cited articles, the most influential is Toward a Theory of Paradox: a Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing, produced by Smith and Lewis (2011), whose main contribution is the proposition of a dynamic equilibrium model for the management of paradoxical tensions in organizational contexts, which has been massively used and applied in contemporary studies.

Regarding the second and third questions, the analysis of the keywords used by the authors allowed the identification of 7 relevant lines of research, categorized as motor themes (control, innovation, and social enterprise) and basic (ambidexterity, corporate social responsibility, paradox, and organizational tensions). In addition to these, the main trending topics in the field are governance, stakeholders, paradox management, human resource management, project management, hybrid organizations, and legitimacy.

In general, this article has theoretical and practical contributions. Conceptually, it presents a relevant discussion about a subject that, despite being central to the development of international research, remains underexplored in the Latin American academic context. In addition, it provides a detailed list of topics that make up the field of organizational tensions, delimiting gaps and research opportunities that can strengthen and improve the literature produced around the phenomenon.

In practice, the ability to distinguish between different types of competing demands is an essential skill, as the representational confusion of these elements can generate inadequate guidelines for their management, seriously compromising the functioning of organizations (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Gaim et al., 2018). For example, if the competing objectives of a social enterprise (economic and socio-environmental) (Park, 2020; Vazquez-Maguirre & Portales, 2018) are framed as a dilemma, it means that the manager will choose to favor one of the two objectives (either-or approach). If they are interpreted as a trade-off, the manager will direct his actions in order to seek the more of one objective, the less of the other. In both scenarios, there would be a mischaracterization of this enterprise, whose essence is based on the double mission. However, the adoption of a paradoxical perspective, in this case, can favor the achievement of both objectives, allowing, through creative alternatives, the coexistence of apparently contradictory demands (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016; Ismail & Johnson, 2019).

Thus, in addition to contributing to solidifying the theoretical bases of the literature of competing demands that emerge in organizational environments, the work helps managers to respond adequately to these demands, as it provides conceptual clarity necessary for managerial decision making.

As limitations of the study (mainly related to the bibliometric approach), we highlight the use of a database composed only of articles in English, selected from a small number of search terms and collected from a single repository – Scopus. In addition, the analysis of co-words based only on the authors' keywords, as warned by Zupic and Čarter (2015), may present an incomplete overview of the field, disregarding relevant information contained in the titles and abstracts of each publication. That said, it is suggested that future works consider other banks of scientific articles, including those of national scope, adding more varied search terms and approaching other textual information of the works to increase the analysis of the investigation.

Despite these limitations, the research offers a comprehensive mapping of scientific production on organizational tensions, through the performance of authors' publication, the relevance of articles, countries, and journals, and the identification of the main theoretical topics worked in this field, providing, therefore, significant and valuable insights for the development of future research.

REFERÊNCIAS

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

Asakawa, K. (2001). Organizational tension in international R&D management: The case of Japanese firms. Research Policy, 30(5), 735-757. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00103-7

Audebrand, L. K. (2017). Expanding the scope of paradox scholarship on social enterprise: The case for (re)introducing worker cooperatives. M@n@gement, 20, 368-393. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.204.0368

Beus, J. M., Lucianetti, L., & Arthur, W. (2020). Clash of the climates: Examining the paradoxical effects of climates for promotion and prevention. Personnel Psychology, 73(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12338

Carmine, S., Andriopoulos, C., Gotsi, et al (2021). A Paradox Approach to Organizational Tensions During the Pandemic Crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry. 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986863

Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., Ray, S., et al (2018). Social entrepreneurship: Creating value in the context of institutional complexity. Journal of Business Research, 86, 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.10.056

Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., et al (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.002

Cunha, M.P., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017739536

Cunha, M.P., Bednarek, R., & Smith, W. (2019). Integrative ambidexterity: One paradoxical mode of learning. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2019-0038

Damayanthi, S., Gooneratne, T. N., & Jayakody, J. A. S. K. (2020). Logics, complexities and paradoxical tensions: Management controls in a clustered firm. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 34(2), 307-337. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2019-4030

De Angelis, R. (2021). Circular economy and paradox theory: A business model perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124823

Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., & Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed tuning of boundary resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 39(1), 217-243. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.1.10

Fagerlin, W. P., & Wang, Y. (2020). Top managers’ communication efforts as response to tensions in product innovation: An attention-based view. Baltic Journal of Management, 16(1), 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2020-0024

Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2019). An Integrative Methodology for Organizational Oppositions: Aligning Grounded Theory and Discourse Analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 917-940. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118776771

Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 601-740. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502

Gaim, M. (2018). On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms. European Management Journal, 36(4), 497-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.09.001

Gaim, M., & Wåhlin, N. (2016). In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.12.002

Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N., Cunha, M. P., & Clegg, S. (2018). Analyzing competing demands in organizations: A systematic comparison. Journal of Organization Design, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0030-9

Gregory, R. W., Keil, M., Muntermann, J., & Mähring, M. (2015). Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Information Systems Research, 26(1), 57-80. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0554

Hilles, A. Q., Ding, T. D., & Ahmed, P. K. (2009). Managing for innovation and creativity: Organisational paradoxes in implementation practice. International Journal of Management Practice, 3(4), 305-326. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMP.2009.026959

Hine, J. A. H. S., & Preuss, L. (2009). “Society is out there, organisation is in here”: On the perceptions of corporate social responsibility held by different managerial groups. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2), 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9970-2

Hoffmann, J. (2018). Talking into (non)existence: Denying or constituting paradoxes of Corporate Social Responsibility. Human Relations, 71(5), 668-691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717721306

Ismail, A., & Johnson, B. (2019). Managing Organizational Paradoxes in Social Enterprises: Case Studies from the MENA Region. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(3), 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-00083-3

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Wernick, A. (2011). Paradoxical tensions in open innovation networks. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 521-548. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061111174943

Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., Chalkias, K., & Cacciatori, E. (2019). Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018805345

Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127013481016

Karhu, P., & Ritala, P. (2020). The multiple faces of tension: Dualities in decision-making. Review of Managerial Science, 14, 485-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0298-8

Keller, J., Chen, E. W., & Leung, A. K. (2018). How national culture influences individuals’ subjective experience with paradoxical tensions. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 25(3), 443-467. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2017-0013

Kenny, K., Haugh, H., & Fotaki, M. (2020). Organizational form and pro-social fantasy in social enterprise creation. Human Relations, 73(1), 94-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726718821413

Kherrazi, S. (2020). Management control of collaborative innovation: Design and structuring mode. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2019-0110

Khiste, G., & Paithankar, R. (2017). Analysis of Bibliometric Term. International Journal of Library Science and Information Management (IJLSIM), 3(3) 81-88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320298273_Analysis_of_Bibliometric_Term_in_Scopus

Koseoglu, M. A. (2016). Growth and structure of authorship and co-authorship network in the strategic management realm: Evidence from the Strategic Management Journal. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 19(3), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2016.02.001

Lauritzen, G., & Karafyllia, M. (2019). Perspective: Leveraging Open Innovation through Paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12474

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204

Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective: Sharpening the Focus and Widening the Scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322

Lewis, R. L., Brown, D. A., & Sutton, N. C. (2019). Control and empowerment as an organising paradox: Implications for management control systems. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(2), 483-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2017-3223

Lindblad, H., & Guerrero, J. R. (2020). Client’s role in promoting BIM implementation and innovation in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 38(5), 468-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1716989

Lindskog, C., & Magnusson, M. (2021). Ambidexterity in Agile software development: A conceptual paper. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 8(1), 16-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-07-2019-0068

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767217

Mafico, N., Krzeminska, A., Härtel, C., & Keller, J. (2021). The mirroring of intercultural and hybridity experiences: A study of African immigrant social entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2021.106093

Maijanen, P., & Virta, S. (2017). Managing exploration and exploitation in a media organisation-A capability-based approach to ambidexterity. Journal of Media Business Studies, 14(2), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2017.1290025

Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., et al (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594

Moral-Muñoz, J., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de La Información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03

Moreira, P., Guimarães, A., & Tsunoda, D. (2020). Qual ferramenta bibliométrica escolher? Um estudo comparativo entre softwares. P2P & Inovação, 6, 140-158. https://doi.org/10.21721/p2p.2020v6n2.p140-158

Nadiv, R., & Kuna, S. (2020). Diversity management as navigation through organizational paradoxes. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 39(4), 355-377. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-12-2018-0236

Niesten, E., & Stefan, I. (2019). Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co-creation-Value Capture: A Literature Review towards Paradox Resolution. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12196

Packer, A. L. (2009). The scielo open access: a gold way from the south. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v39i3.479

Pålsson, H., & Sandberg, E. (2020). Paradoxes in supply chains: A conceptual framework for packed products. International Journal of Logistics Management, 31(3), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2019-0338

Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation-efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69(9), 1791-1822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715625343

Park, J.-H. (2020). Chasing two rabbits: How social enterprises as hybrid organizations manage paradoxes. Asian Business and Management, 19, 407-437. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00065-3

Pedersen, E. R. G., & Rosati, F. (2019). Organisational tensions and the relationship to CSR in the football sector. European Sport Management Quarterly, 19(1), 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2018.1546754

Pereira, V., Patnaik, S., Temouri, Y., et al (2021). A longitudinal micro-foundational investigation into ambidextrous practices in an international alliance context-A case of a biopharma EMNE. International Business Review, 30(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2020.101770

Periac, F., David, A., & Roberson, Q. (2018). Clarifying the Interplay between Social Innovation and Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Framework Rooted in Paradox Management. European Management Review, 15(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12121

Pešalj, B., Pavlov, A., & Micheli, P. (2018). The use of management control and performance measurement systems in SMEs: A levers of control perspective. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 38(11), 2169-2191. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2016-0565

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308389

Pradies, C., Tunarosa, A., Lewis, M. W., & Courtois, J. (2021). From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: the social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1241-1263 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620907200

Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: a constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421

Radu-Lefebvre, M., & Randerson, K. (2020). Successfully navigating the paradox of control and autonomy in succession: The role of managing ambivalent emotions. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 38(3), 184-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242619879078

Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. (2018). The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507-1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12397

Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation-augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2018.0072

Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining the paradoxical tension-performance relationship. Long Range Planning, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.003

Schad, J., & Bansal, P. (2018). Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1490-1506. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12398

Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422

Schneider, A., Bullinger, B., & Brandl, J. (2020). Resourcing Under Tensions: How frontline employees create resources to balance paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1291-1317 https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620926825

Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2017). Knots in the Discourse of Innovation: Investigating Multiple Tensions in a Reacquired Spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 463-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640845

Sivunen, A., & Putnam, L. (2020). The dialectics of spatial performances: The interplay of tensions in activity-based organizing. Human Relations, 73(8), 1129-1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719857117

Smith, W., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407-442. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323327

Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223

Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., et al. (2017). Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 303-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617693560

Srisusilawati, P., Rusydiana, A. S., Sanrego, Y. D., et al. (2021). Biblioshiny R application on islamic microfinance research. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9428&context=libphilprac

Sukoco, B. M., Tanjung, C., & Ishadi, S. K. (2020). Managing paradoxes of innovation in an Indonesian TV group. Creative Industries Journal, 13(2), 137-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2019.1684094

Szentes, H. (2018). Reinforcing cycles involving inter- and intraorganizational paradoxical tensions when managing large construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 36(3), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2017.1315826

Szentes, H., & Eriksson, P. E. (2016). Paradoxical organizational tensions between control and flexibility when managing large infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001081

Tse, T. (2013). Paradox resolution: A means to achieve strategic innovation. European Management Journal, 31(6), 682-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.05.001

Vazquez-Maguirre, M., & Portales, L. (2018). Profits and purpose: Organizational tensions in social enterprises. Intangible Capital, 14(4), 604-618. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1208

Wagenschwanz, A. M., & Grimes, M. G. (2021). Navigating compromise: How founder authenticity affects venture identification amidst organizational hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106085

Waldman, D. A., Putnam, L. L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.04.006

Wareham, J., Fox, P. B., & Giner, J. L. C. (2014). Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), 1195-1215. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0895

Wenzel, M., Koch, J., Cornelissen, J. P., et al (2019). How organizational actors live out paradoxical tensions through power relations: The case of a youth prison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.001

Wu, Y., & Wu, S. (2016). Managing ambidexterity in creative industries: A survey. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2388-2396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.008

Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Cardinal, L. B. (2018). Managing Persistent Tensions on the Frontline: A Configurational Perspective on Ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 739-769. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12311

Zupic, I., & Čarter, T. (2014). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629