在高度不確定且充滿矛盾需求的組織情境中，團隊被期待在「相互衝突卻又相依」的張力下持續產出創新解方；然而，團隊如何將兼顧兩端的矛盾式取向（both–and）轉化為創造力資源，其運作機制與互動歷程仍缺乏系統性的說明。
本論文聚焦於矛盾式框架如何促進團隊創造力，採用三項研究的循序解釋型混合方法設計，先透過量化研究檢驗因果機制與邊界條件，再運用質性歷程分析揭示矛盾張力如何在真實互動中被生成、協商與推進。
研究一於受控的團隊協作情境（設計思考任務）中建立中介模型，主張矛盾式框架並非直接促成創意結果，而是透過提升「衝突感」（具建設性且以任務為焦點的張力）與促進「整合複雜性」（辨識並整合多元觀點的認知能力）來間接強化團隊創造力。
研究二進一步提出調節式中介模型檢驗關鍵邊界條件，指出「衝突感」是否能轉化為創造力，取決於團隊的整合複雜性：整合能力作為必要的認知資源，使矛盾引發的張力得以被加工為綜合洞見；若整合能力不足，張力則更可能導致認知過載與討論僵局。
研究三則轉向真實組織場域，分析一個全球科技公司（Gilat Satellite Networks）之商業流程管理團隊的會議逐字稿，將互動劃分為不同情節（episodes），並對比「進展（progress）」與「停滯（stall）」之互動結果。透過對話論證編碼（CACS）與落後序列分析（LSA）結合詮釋性的互動歷程分析，研究三顯示矛盾並非僅是認知狀態，更是透過溝通實踐被共同建構的成果；團隊能在明確說出對立觀點、將重構為「兩端並存」、以及共同編織可同時容納矛盾雙方的敘事等互動模式中，推動張力走向整合與創新。
綜合三項研究，本論文提出一套跨層次、跨方法的整合性觀點：矛盾式框架提升團隊創造力的關鍵，在於其所促成的心理與認知條件，以及這些條件在互動話語中的具體展演；此一發現亦為領導者與引導者提供具體啟示——透過設計能「正當化矛盾」的工作框架來喚起建設性張力，同時強化團隊的整合思維能力，進而提升創意綜合的可能性。

Organizations increasingly rely on teams to generate creative solutions amid persistent, contradictory demands, yet the mechanisms by which a both–and (paradoxical) orientation becomes an asset in collaborative work remain insufficiently understood. This dissertation examines how paradoxical frames enhance team creativity through a three-study, sequential explanatory mixed-methods design that combines variance-theoretic tests of causal mechanisms with a process-oriented account of how tensions unfold in interaction.
Study 1 employs a controlled team-based design-thinking task to test a mediation model in which paradoxical frames shape creativity indirectly by heightening perceived conflict (a constructive, task-focused tension) and increasing integrative complexity (the capacity to differentiate and integrate multiple perspectives).
Study 2 extends this model by testing a moderated mediation boundary condition: the creative value of experienced conflict depends on teams’ integrative capacity, such that integrative complexity functions as a critical cognitive resource that determines whether paradox-induced tension becomes productive or leads to overload and impasse.
Study 3 contextualizes the quantitative mechanisms in a real organizational setting by analyzing meeting transcripts from a Business Process Management team in a global technology firm (Gilat Satellite Networks), segmenting interaction into episodes and comparing “progress” versus “stall” outcomes. Using systematic discourse coding (CACS) and lag sequential analysis alongside interpretive process analysis, Study 3 shows how paradox is communicatively enacted through patterns such as explicitly voicing opposing views, reframing either–or dilemmas into both–and solutions, and collaboratively crafting narratives that preserve both poles of a tension.
Together, the dissertation contributes an integrated account of paradox in teams by demonstrating that paradoxical frames do not simply “cause” creativity; rather, they cultivate the psychological and cognitive conditions—and their interactional enactment—through which creative synthesis becomes possible, offering actionable implications for leaders and facilitators seeking to design work that productively surfaces tensions while strengthening integrative thinking capabilities.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
Andriopoulos, C., & Gotsi, M. (2017). Methods of Paradox. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (pp. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198754428.013.26
Andriopoulos, C., Gotsi, M., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2018). Turning the Sword: How NPD Teams Cope with Front-End Tensions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 427–445. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12423
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012815
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(4), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x
Baruah, J., Paulus, P. B., & Kohn, N. W. (2021). The Effect of the Sequence of Creative Processes on the Quality of the Ideas: The Benefit of a Simultaneous Focus on Originality and Feasibility. Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(4), 946–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.500
Batool, U., Raziq, M. M., & Sarwar, a. (2023). The paradox of paradoxical leadership: A multi-level conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 33(4), 18, Article 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100983
Berti, M., & Cunha, M. P. e. (2023). Paradox, dialectics or trade-offs? A double loop model of paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 861–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12899
Berti, M., Simpson, A., Cunha, M. P., & Clegg, S. (2021). What is paradox? Tensions, contradictions and oppositions in organization studies. Elgar introduction to organizational paradox theory, 9–30. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101144.00011
Brodbeck, F. C., Kugler, K. G., Fischer, J. A., Heinze, J., & Fischer, D. (2021). Group-level integrative complexity: Enhancing differentiation and integration in group decision-making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219892698
Calic, G., Hélie, S., Bontis, N., & Mosakowski, E. (2019). Creativity from paradoxical experience: a theory of how individuals achieve creativity while adopting paradoxical frames [Article]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-03-2018-0223
Chakrabarti, A., & Khadilkar, P. (2003). A measure for assessing product novelty. DS 31: Proceedings of ICED 03, the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm,
Chao, C. C., & Tian, D. (2013). Keeping relationships positive or doing things right: Bridging women leaders' conflict management strategies in non‐profit organisations in Taiwan and the USA. Chinese Management Studies, 7(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141311307622
Chung, S. S. E., & Meneely, J. (2012). Profiling group dynamics within business and design student teams: Relationships among personality traits, problem–solving styles, and creative performance. Journal of Interior Design, 37(3), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2012.01079.x
Dafermos, M. (2018). Relating Dialogue and Dialectics: A Philosophical Perspective. Dialogic Pedagogy, 6.
Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001
De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of management, 32(1), 83–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038688
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
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
Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., & Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162423
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management review, 35(2), 202–225. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.2.zok202
Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of management journal, 49(5), 1016–1030. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798182
Gaim, M. (2017). Paradox as the new normal: Essays on framing, managing and sustaining organizational tensions Umeå universitet]. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-130527
Gao, X., Yu, J., & Li, M. (2010). Developing effective strategies to address complex challenges: evidence from local high-tech firms in China. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(2-4), 319–341. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2010.033808
Gomez Celis, D. A., Liou, S., & Hernandez Sibo, I. P. (2025). Enhancing team treativity through paradoxical frames: Exploring the role of conflict and integrative complexity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(3), e70044. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.70044
Gu, J., Chen, Z., Huang, Q., Liu, H., & Huang, S. (2018). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between shared leadership and creativity in inter-organizational teams. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(2), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.135
Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management review, 39(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0224
Harvey, S., & Berry, J. W. (2023). Toward a meta-theory of creativity forms: How novelty and usefulness shape creativity. Academy of Management review, 48(3), 504–529. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0110
Harvey, S., & Kou, C.-Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative science quarterly, 58(3), 346–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213498591
Hernandez Sibo, I. P., Gomez Celis, D. A., Liou, S., Koh, B., & Leung, A. K. (2023). The role of argumentation on high-and low-creative performing groups: A structuration analysis of undergraduate students’ group discussion. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101217
Hoever, I. J., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2010.54495091
Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications (Third Edition (3rd ed.) ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315650982
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative science quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069453
Kam, C., & Bellehumeur, C. R. (2022). Grasping the paradoxical nature of wisdom through unconscious integrative complexity [Perspective]. Frontiers in psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028951
Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Sage.
Leung, A., Liou, S., Miron-Spektor, E., Koh, B., Chan, D., Eisenberg, R., & Schneider, I. (2018). Middle ground approach to paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 443. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000160
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of management review, 25(4), 760–776.
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
Lindell, M. K., Brandt, C. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1999). A revised index of interrater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466219922031257
Liu, Y., Xu, S., & Zhang, B. (2020). Thriving at work: how a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886319888267
Manzoni, B., & Volker, L. (2017). Paradoxes and management approaches of competing for work in creative professional service firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2016.10.002
Martin, A., Keller, A., & Fortwengel, J. (2019). Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Strategic organization, 17(1), 38–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017740262
Miron-Spektor, E., Emich, K. J., Argote, L., & Smith, W. K. (2022). Conceiving opposites together: Cultivating paradoxical frames and epistemic motivation fosters team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 171, Article 104153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2022.104153
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (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
Miron-Spektor, E., & Paletz, S. B. (2020). Collective paradoxical frames: Managing tensions in learning and innovation. In The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning (pp. 429–450). OXFORD University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190263362.001.0001
Paulus, P. B., Coursey, L. E., & Kenworthy, J. B. (2018). Divergent and convergent collaborative creativity. In The Palgrave handbook of social creativity research (pp. 245–262). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95498-1_16
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
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/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
Qahri-Saremi, H., & Turel, O. (2020). Ambivalence and coping responses in post-adoptive information systems use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(3), 820–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1790193
Raza-Ullah, T. (2020). Experiencing the paradox of coopetition: A moderated mediation framework explaining the paradoxical tension–performance relationship. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.12.003
Rubin, M., Miron-Spektor, E., & Keller, J. (2023). Unlocking creative tensions with a paradox approach. In Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 125–145). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91840-4.00006-2
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity research journal, 24(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies, 32(4), 348–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
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/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
Schubert, E. (2021). Creativity Is Optimal Novelty and Maximal Positive Affect: A New Definition Based on the Spreading Activation Model [Hypothesis and Theory]. Frontiers in Neuroscience, Volume 15 - 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2021.612379
Shao, Y., Nijstad, B. A., & Täuber, S. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.01.008
Sharma, S., & Mehta, S. (2023). Psychological safety and creativity in teams: A mediated moderation model of shared leadership and team diversity. Iim Kozhikode Society & Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/22779752231163356
Sibo, I. P. H., Celis, D. A. G., Liou, S., Koh, B., & Leung, A. K. (2023). The role of argumentation on high-and low-creative performing groups: A structuration analysis of undergraduate students’ group discussion. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101217.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0932
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management review, 36(2), 381–403.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2012). Leadership skills for managing paradoxes. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01435.x
Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational sustainability: Organization design and senior leadership to enable strategic paradox.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
Snehvrat, S., Chaudhary, S., & Majhi, S. G. (2022). Ambidexterity and absorptive capacity in boundary-spanning managers: role of paradox mindset and learning goal orientation [Article]. Management Decision, 60(12), 3209–3231. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-03-2021-0328
Sonnenburg, S. (2004). Creativity in communication: A theoretical framework for collaborative product creation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(4), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00314.x
Sparr, J. L. (2018). Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sensegiving. Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446696
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318901143001
Taylor, J. R., & Robichaud, D. (2004). Finding the organization in the communication: Discourse as action and sensemaking. Organization, 11(3), 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404041999
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. (1993). Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.500
Waldman, D. A., Putnam, L. L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Siegel, D. (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
Weiser, A.-K., & Laamanen, T. (2022). Extending the Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Paradox: Unveiling the dissipative dynamics in organizations. Organization Theory, 3(3), 26317877221090317. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090317
Wilms, R., Winnen, L. A., & Lanwehr, R. (2019). Top managers' cognition facilitates organisational ambidexterity: The mediating role of cognitive processes. European Management Journal, 37(5), 589–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.006
Yin, J. (2022). Living with tensions in the workplace: a grounded theory of paradoxical leadership in cultivating subordinates' paradox mindset [Article]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(6), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-04-2021-0151
Zhang, W., Liao, S., Liao, J., & Zheng, Q. (2021). Paradoxical leadership and employee task performance: A sense-making perspective. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 753116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753116
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. (2015). Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences. Academy of management journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Law, K. S., & Zhou, J. (2022). Paradoxical Leadership, Subjective Ambivalence, and Employee Creativity: Effects of Employee Holistic Thinking. Journal of management studies, 59(3), 695–723. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12792
Zhou, W., Zhu, Z., & Vredenburgh, D. (2020). Emotional intelligence, psychological safety, and team decision making. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(1/2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-10-2019-0105