organization change7th edition APA formatted paper

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 1/37

Strategic Organization

First Published November 21, 2017 Research Article https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127017734446

Abstract Working within a Bakhtinian perspective of relational dialectical tensions, this study seeks to elaborate on current organizational change theories through a rich set of qualitative data collected on an Internet start-up that revolutionized the music industry. Following the company for 12 years, we focused on the tensions arising during the company’s development and on the responses to these tensions. Our results indicate that with a process model, tensions and decisions develop in a reflexive relationship, which shows that change happens, not in spite of unintended consequences, but because of the unintended consequences of the decisions enacted. We show that change is not always the result of deliberate intentions, conscious choices, and purposeful actions of individuals, but rather as an ongoing process that evolves through countervailing dynamics at multiple organizational levels. Tensions and responses to them are pivotal to this process of changing and should be analyzed as directional markers for future oppositional struggles. Consistent with the Bakhtinian position, we find that change occurs within the interplay of tensions as actors live out struggles and decisions in the midst of organizing.

Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis

Account Administrators: Review your remote access options for SAGE Journals

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 2/37

Keywords

organizational change, process orientation, dialectical tensions, contradictions, unintended consequences, creative industry

Since the early work on systems theory, tensions and contradictions have been a vital part of the organizational change landscape (Quinn and Cameron, 1988). As new forms of organizing often clash with traditional practices, tensions are everyday occurrences in organizational change, especially in light of globalization, new technologies, and niche markets (Ashcraft and Trethewey, 2004). Indeed, both scholars and practitioners often question what stability means in an era of continual change (Farjoun, 2010).

Extensive research in organizational studies focuses on the development and management of tensions, contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational change, specifically, how contradictions evolve over time, how actors respond to them, and how these actions and reactions play out in the change process (for extensive reviews, see Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). Even though scholars acknowledge the role of change in crossing multiple organizational levels, research typically centers on a particular arena, for example, institutional (Das and Teng, 2000), organization-wide (Klarner and Raisch, 2013), or intraorganizational levels (e.g. top, middle, and lower organizational levels) (Meyer, 2006). In this way, organizational level typically functions as a backdrop or context that remains constant and removed from actors’ experiences rather than as continually changing through ongoing events that link micro-level decisions to meso–macro-level actions.

Even when scholars problematize tensions and organizational levels, they often embrace equilibrium views of change in which they strive to reach a balance between opposites. This bias results in splitting tensions across levels or oscillating between them. Also, research typically presumes that boundaries across levels remain stationary during changes. Thus, we raise the following questions: do boundaries across levels remain distinct and static during organizational changes or do they move as actions from one level reflect back on and shape future actions? How fluid are boundaries when tensions and unintended consequences of change infuse multiple levels (MacKay and Chia, 2013)? In effect, this study seeks to extend the work on organizational change through examining levels as dynamic contexts and questioning the rigidity of boundaries that demarcate micro-, meso-, and macro-levels.

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 3/37

In addition, this study problematizes the traditional relationship between tensions and unintended consequences. Unintended consequences are typically defined as occurrences that actors neither expect nor prefer (De Cock and Rickards, 1996). Scholars who examine oppositional tensions and organizational change often view unintended consequences as negative outcomes that cause side effects, problems, and unwanted circumstances (Jian, 2007). Unintended consequences are also treated as problematic because competent managers and change agents have difficulty accounting for and controlling them (Harris and Ogbonna, 2002). This lack of control is especially evident when tensions and changes play out in complex ways across multiple organizational levels.

Within a process orientation, however, unintended consequences accompany change and emerge as part of it rather than as controlled by agents or caused by environmental forces that impinge on change (MacKay and Chia, 2013). This approach leads us to question, how do unintended consequences grow out of tensions and relate to continual change across organizational levels? Thus, this study makes a second major contribution in showing how unintended consequences occur concomitantly with change and often generate tensions that contribute to ongoing change.

Moreover, this study adds to the existing literature by adopting an alternative theory of oppositional tensions, specifically Bakhtin’s (1981) relational view of dialectics that treats opposites as rooted in discursive interactions linked to organizational decisions. Tensions refer to stress, discomfort, and tightness from having to make choices among ongoing struggles (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2014). In Bakhtin’s view, managing tensions emerges from responses to them or ways that actors moved forward in the midst of a never-ending process of engagement (Jabri, 2016). Hence, another contribution of this study stems from employing relational dialectics to examine tensions, unintended consequences, and change.

This study also adds to the growing body of literature on the creative industries (Caves, 2000), especially through a rich set of qualitative data linked to an Internet start-up company that revolutionized the music industry, Sonicbids (https://www.sonicbids.com). Having privileged access to this organization from its inception through a period of 12  years, this research focuses on how change happens “on the ground,” as well as in the meso- and macro-dynamics of changing. Our unique longitudinal study conducted on three levels—the founder of the organization (micro), the company (meso), and the industry (macro)—allows us to take a process perspective in exploring tensions and

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 4/37

responses to them during various periods of the company’s development (Langley and Tsoukas, 2010).

To develop these contributions, we review the literature on process studies of tensions, dialectics, paradoxes, and organizational change in two areas: multiple levels of analysis and unintended consequences. We then describe the tenets of relational dialectics, distinguish it from Hegelian dialectics and paradox theory, and justify selecting this approach. We continue with our case study and analysis and conclude with the implications of this study.

Literature review and theoretical perspectives

A process orientation to organizational change highlights streams of actions and interactions that unfold over time as organizations are becoming (Langley and Tsoukas, 2017). Change is defined as the “reweaving of actors’ webs of beliefs and habits of action as a result of new experiences obtained through interaction” (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 570). This study adopts a relational ontology that treats organizations not as things, but as interrelated experiences that connect ongoing events. Change is not something that happens to pre-existing organizations; rather, it constitutes organizations through the unfolding chains of activities in which contexts are also evolving. This view of change, particularly when intertwined with the growth of research on paradox and dialectical tensions (Langley et al., 2013), problematizes multiple organizational levels and unintended consequences.

Multiple organizational levels

Putnam et al. (2016) observe that process studies of tensions and organizational change embrace multiple perspectives (Farjoun, 2010; Groleau et al., 2011; Seo and Creed, 2002). Dialectics and paradox theory are two commonly used approaches (for a comparison, see Farjoun, 2017). Drawn from Hegel (1969), dialectics is defined as the unity of opposites or the push–pull of contradictions in the ongoing development of social systems (Benson, 1977). Cast as a particular type of generative mechanism, dialectics represents an alternative to life-cycle theory, teleological models, and evolutionary approaches that accent environmental causes and institutional survival (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). Dialectics in the Hegelian tradition situates change as arising from the struggle between a thesis and antithesis that leads to a rupture, conflict, or transformation, often resulting in a new thesis in which the process recurs (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 5/37

In effect, this approach works from a determinant end point in which a struggle resolves, culminates, or transforms (Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2017).

Research that employs Hegelian dialectics typically examines macro-level strategic change, such as alliances (Das and Kumar, 2010; Das and Teng, 2000), interorganizational collaborations (Johansson and Stohl, 2012), and institutional entrepreneurship (Seo and Creed, 2002); but some studies focus on contradictions across organizational levels. Drawing on a case study of an alliance, De Rond and Bouchikhi (2004) show how four pairs of contradictions infuse individual, organization, and collaborative levels at different stages that move from inception to termination. In a collaboration that crosses urban and rural hospitals, Cho et al. (2007) target team, organizational, and institutional levels to analyze contradictory forces in implementing a telehealth innovation. Framed at the institutional level as business versus medical interests, contradictions surface at the team level between workable and non-workable practices. These choices shape the organization-wide tensions of adequate versus inadequate reimbursement systems and acceptable versus unacceptable business plans that reflect back on revenue loss and gain. Failure of the innovation raises questions about how actors manage tensions that infuse different organizational levels.

Scholars who adopt structuration and activity systems perspectives center on change at the individual, team, organizational, and institutional levels. In particular, research on hospitals in an era of managed care shows how the ongoing process of change generates contradictions that infuse multiple supervisory, organizational, and institutional systems (Nicotera and Clinkscales, 2010). Primary contradictions in cost containment often engender secondary ones in developing useful practices (Engeström and Sannino, 2011). While these studies demonstrate how contradictions that cross multiple organizational levels develop into paradoxes and double binds (Cho et al., 2007), they often align oppositions with a fixed social context, such as capitalism or cost-related structures that treat tensions as detrimental to organizational change (Das and Teng, 2000). As De Rond and Bouchikhi (2004) note, contradictions are neither functional nor dysfunctional; they just exist. Moreover, some studies, particularly at the institutional level, fail to capture the lived experiences of individuals, such as emotional overload, burnout, and cynicism, thus ignoring a pivotal level of analysis in understanding contradictions in process theories of becoming (Doyle et al., 2000).

Finally, the work on paradoxes casts contradictions as opposites that exist simultaneously, persist over a period of time, and create situations of almost impossible choice (Smith and Lewis, 2011). Focusing on sensemaking as an effort to create an orderly understanding,

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 6/37

Lüscher and Lewis (2008) examine paradox as a lens for new insights about mixed messages during organizational change, ones that travel across organizational levels. Tracking the paradoxes of performing, belonging, and organizing, they show how the move from either-or thinking to both-and approaches enables reflection through paradoxical inquiry. This study, however, while sensitive to the grounded actions and interactions of paradoxes, treats organizational levels as fixed arenas or static contexts without deciphering their reflexive interrelationships.

In contrast, in a study of product implementations over a 3-year period, Jarzabkowski et al. (2013) demonstrate how interactions between micro- and meso-paradoxes (i.e. performing and belonging) spur specific actions embedded in restructuring that reflect back on the macro-level paradox. In a similar way, Haddadj (2006) reports how the simultaneous enactment of complex versus simple processes and stable versus unstable business arrangements trigger paradoxes in a CEO transition that influence the planning and restructuring of a family firm. With a similar reflexive lens for tracking paradoxes, Jay (2013) employs a sensemaking approach to examine how participants navigate paradoxes triggered by ambiguity in institutional logics that surface in a public–private hybrid organization. Unlike many organizational and institutional change projects, these studies serve as models for examining how contradictions reflexively fuel organizational change across multiple phases and iterations. Yet, they do not focus on the role of unintended consequences or on the fluid nature of boundaries that typify these organizational levels.

Moreover, despite differences among these perspectives, the majority of studies share a bias for balancing opposing forces or restoring equilibrium to organizational change. This bias, as De Rond and Bouchikhi (2004) point out, implicitly treats change and tension management as successful or unsuccessful. Contradictions and paradoxes surface as needing to be managed, seeking a “workable certainty,” or assigning opposites to different levels or time periods. This view implicitly favors a dynamic equilibrium as a means of balancing opposites (Smith and Lewis, 2011).

In general, the studies on tensions, dialectics, and paradoxes that examine multiple levels often align levels with a fixed view of context, have a bias for restoring equilibrium in managing tensions, and treat boundaries between levels as pre-set and static. These concerns lead to the following research question:

RQ1: How do organizational contexts and boundaries change as organizations are in the act of changing?

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 7/37

Unintended consequences

Related to a multilevel focus on organizational change, unintended consequences are outcomes that actors neither expect nor prefer (Harris and Ogbonna, 2002; Jian, 2007), while unanticipated consequences are often opposite outcomes of what was initially desired (McKinley and Scherer, 2000). Both types of effects are pivotal to change, yet process studies of organizational tensions typically treat them as negative. Moreover, they adopt the view that managers should control for these unanticipated side effects, as is evident in studies of the financial performance of a Total Quality Management (TQM) program (Sterman et al., 1997); organizational change that benefits adversaries rather than empowered actors (Asiskovitch, 2009); and ways that actors monitor, measure, and account for unintended consequences (Cortell and Peterson, 2001).

Yet, “unanticipated” is not necessarily “undesirable” (Merton, 1936), and sensemaking practices as well as findings on the indeterminacy of choice challenge the view that unintended consequences can be controlled (Balogun and Johnson, 2005). In fact, both intended and unintended circumstances arise from collective sensemaking that often result in resistance and rejection of changes. As Jian (2007) notes, “planners (should) understand that although paradoxical, indeterminacy is the nature of planned organizational change” (p. 25). Studies that examine multiple organizational levels confirm this view of indeterminacy, particularly in discovering unintended consequences that emerge on one level and displace actions on another level (Abdallah et al., 2011); successive downsizings in which unintended consequences and contradictions from one stage set the conditions for future reductions in force (Fairhurst et al., 2002); and increased exploration at one organizational level backfires and diminishes performance at other levels (Siggelkow and Rivkin, 2006).

In effect, most of the literature treats unintended consequences as an unwanted organizational side effect that needs to be controlled. Researchers rarely center on how unintended consequences might actually fuel ongoing change as actors generate and respond to tensions. In contrast, the “unowned view” elevates chance and uncertainty and treats unintended consequences as driving ongoing change (MacKay and Chia, 2013). Rather than embracing strategic choice or environmental determinism, the unowned view adopts the position that actors, organizations, and environments are “temporary” and, as such, offer partial or incomplete understanding of uncertainty in change situations; thus, unintended consequences arise “of [their] own volition” from coping actions and without the need for an identifiable change agent (MacKay and Chia, 2013: 211). Even though managers act purposively, the “unowned view” contends that they cannot anticipate,

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 8/37

control, or account for unintended consequences because their choices are incomplete and temporary. In effect, every choice made or every deliberate action taken in a change situation is necessarily partial. Unintended consequences then emerge on their own from actions linked to coping with changes. As these consequences infuse or cross organizational levels, they may fuel tensions and subsequent changes. This stance leads to the following research question:

RQ2: How do unintended consequences surface in tensions and organizational change?

Relational dialectics and organizational change

Research on tensions and organizational change typically embraces Hegelian dialectics or paradox theory. As an alternative, this study adopts relational dialectics, an approach drawn from Bakhtin (1981) whose work focuses on dialectics and dialogue in literature. Treating discourse as a cultural product, Bakhtin (1981) examines how language constructs reality through ongoing struggles over actions and meanings. Discourse serves as a system of meaning, one that references the past, provides interpretations of the present, and anticipates the future; hence, meanings are never fixed and are always in play. Relational dialectics focuses specifically on tensions that become centered or pivotal in action (centripetal forces) and interact with those that surface as marginalized or form division (centrifugal forces) (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996). Responses to tensions play a pivotal role in reconstructing social arrangements through shifting interests and altering opportunities to act (Baxter, 2011).

Importantly, then, a key feature of relational dialectics is deciphering how actors respond amid struggles. “Responding,” however, differs from the normative approach of “managing tensions” in that responses become part of an ongoing struggle over action and meaning and the temporal flow of change. Putnam et al. (2016) set forth three categories of responses: (1) either-or, that is, privileging one pole over the other through selection, denial of tensions, dividing and separating them, or employing defensive mechanisms; (2) both-and, that is, embracing tensions in paradoxical thinking, moving back and forth between tensions at different times or on different organizational levels, or finding a balance or a compromise between them; and (3) more-than, that is, continually connecting the tensions, situating them in a new relationship, or reformulating the tensions into a new whole through reframing, transcendence, and promoting relational reflexivity through increased consciousness. Research reveals that both-and and more-than responses aid in embracing tensions and moving forward in creative ways, rather than feeling paralyzed or experiencing inaction (Schad et al., 2016).

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 9/37

Another type of more-than response, drawn from Bakhtin (1981), centers on developing a third element through using dialogic activity to connect dualities, alter the boundaries of opposites, and create a third space (Janssens and Steyaert, 1999). Dialogic activity is a process which moves dialectics to dialogue through adding more voices to the interplay of tensions or introducing unrecognized perspectives in the struggle over meaning. The third element is also called a “zone of ambiguity,” a “development zone,” or “space for creativity” in the midst of tensions (Berglund and Werr, 2000).

Initially developed to study how interpersonal relationships evolve, maintain, or deteriorate, scholars employ relational dialectics to examine a number of topics, including inclusion–exclusion tensions in planned organizational change (Barge et al., 2008), internal–external tensions in interorganizational collaborations (Lewis et al., 2010), and exploration–exploitation tensions in innovation (Sheep et al., 2017).

A few studies examine tensions across multiple levels. In a study of a global software company, Gibbs (2009) focuses on tensions across group member, inter-team, and team- organizational levels through the use of relational dialectics. Her study reveals that lower level employees respond to tensions through employing either-or approaches (i.e. withdrawal and selection) and members of inter-team and team-organizational levels embrace both-and responses (i.e. transcendence and reframing). In a different study of managed care, Medved et al. (2001) identify five types of tensions that cross organizational levels, for example, sharing versus guarding information between leaders and external stakeholders, short-term local projects struggling with long-term global issues, and linear or stage models of global planning in tension with experiences at the local level. Responses to tensions reveal that linear, incremental models fail to capture ongoing changes that move forward, backward, dissolve, and then reorganize.

Relational dialectics is particularly suitable for this study because it is grounded in a relational ontology, focuses on micro-practices of actions and interactions, and uses discursive practices to understand struggles over meanings. It differs from paradox theory in that it focuses on how tensions are constituted; that is, how they come into being through interaction processes that evolve over time. Thus, it examines the ongoing interplay of tensions as they emerge rather than locating tensions in sensemaking, cognitions, and psychological states. Relational dialectics also moves away from equilibrium as an end point for managing paradoxes. Instead, it treats tensions in organizational change as an ongoing interplay between order and disorder with no predetermined end state.

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 10/37

Unlike Hegelian approaches, relational dialectics locates contradictions and tensions in everyday decisions and interactions; thus, it moves away from structures, systems, and institutions. It also differs from Hegelian thinking through rejecting a determinant end point, ruptures, and conflicts as culminating processes. Bakhtin’s (1981) view of dialectics draws from Marx’s (1906) notion of forces of unity and division and embraces a dialogical view of dialectics. Specifically then, this study draws from Bakhtin’s (1981) concept of dialectics, locates tensions in struggles over meaning, focuses on responses to them, and centers on ways to connect them over time.

This theoretical lens shapes two key questions that guide our study:

RQ3: What types of tensions and what types of responses to them surface across organizational levels during ongoing change?

RQ4: What patterns among tensions and responses emerge in relation to organization levels?

The case

Sonicbids: an online marketplace for independent music artists and promoters

This case study took place at Sonicbids, an Internet-based company founded and headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2001. Sonicbids used a state-of-the-art online platform to directly connect thousands of talented and previously unnoticed independent musicians with promoters who needed their talents. Basically, the company connected independent artists with promoters of live music events who held licensing opportunities (see Table 1 for a background summary of the music industry). According to its website, Sonicbids “help[ed] bands discover and book gigs” by offering an easy-to-use- online platform that allowed artists to create their Electronic Press Kits (EPKs) and apply for gigs advertised on Sonicbids’ website. It also helped promoters book “the right bands” (https://www.sonicbids.com, last accessed 15 May 2014).

Table 1. Timeline of the case organization and related data.

A Berklee College of Music graduate, the founder, Panos Panay, was an executive at a major talent agency in the late 1990s when he realized that a large group of independent

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 11/37

artists, who were not popular or profitable enough for big talent agency standards, were rarely considered for “gigs.” Fully nine-tenths of this US$15b market went unserved. Agents received numerous hardcopy press kits that they often had little time to review while artists anxiously waited for decisions on their submissions. Panay recalled the day when he picked up a book called Blur: “The author contended that the wired world was eliminating the lines between traditional business categories … once-separate, products and services were blending on the Internet” (Champy, 2008). According to Panay, that “nugget of knowledge” inspired him to developed the concept of Sonicbids to address the challenges that he faced as an agent and perhaps to shape the future of the music business. When his boss rejected his proposal, Panay quit his job, put together a business plan, and launched Sonicbids as an online platform in 2001 with US$50,000 that he raised from family and friends.

Contrary to the industry trend at that time which focused on artists as the main stakeholders, Panay believed that the key to Sonicbids success was to go after the promoters. If they bought into Sonicbids, the musicians would find their way. The simplicity and efficiency of receiving and reviewing EPKs without searching through piles of paperwork and listen to CDs, and to do so by getting paid for each submission, was enough to get 102 promoters to sign up in the first year of operation and a total of 2600 by the beginning of 2005 and around 21,000 by 2013. In addition, Panay found that Sonicbids gained credibility by having the promoters pay the artists directly rather than going through an agent. As expected, artists’ responses exceeded the number of promoters’ sign-ups with the member artist community growing by over 500% between 2004 and 2007. With the live performance industry doubling in 10 years, Sonicbids enjoyed significant growth year after year. The company, which employed about 50 “music aficionados” at the end of 2009, generated approximately US$10m in revenue in 2010. Its 250,000 registered bands and 21,000 promoters from around the world sealed deals on 73,000 “gigs” in 2009.

In 2007, Sonicbids raised US$4.5m in institutional funding. Soon after, it launched the Sonicbids Brands Division that used music to promote brand awareness of products and services. By tapping into its community of artists, Sonicbids offered market segmentation, customized websites, advertising, promotional events, among other services. In June 2010, Sonicbids announced its acquisition of ArtistData, a publishing platform that allowed musicians to update and publish their content across multiple social networking sites. Other partnerships, such as the one with online music retailer Musician’s Friend, made “no fee submissions for gigs” available to Sonicbids members.

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 12/37

Panay felt that artists needed to understand the environment in which they operated and be actively involved with their own fan-base by participating in social media. Ultimately, he envisioned “no starving artists but a strong artistic middle class.” As Champy (2008) noted, the change brought about by Sonicbids facilitated a market that was increasingly in need of “efficient and transparent ways of finding and booking independent bands” (p. 27).

Sonicbids received many prestigious business awards and listings, including ranking fifth in the 2005 Fast Company’s “Fast Fifty” list and a 2006 ranking in Inc’s 500 fastest growing US companies. The founder also received several awards, including Boston Business Journal’s “40 Under 40” Award and the 2010 Massachusetts High Tech All-Stars Award for Innovation.

Methods

The researchers gained access to the company through a personal relationship of one of the authors with the founder. Although the initial work was to develop a teaching case, the project evolved into a 12-year ethnographic study of organizational changing through collecting real-time data from multiple observations; thus, we traced change as it was happening “on the ground.”

Data collection

This study relied on a rich set of interview data collected between 2001 and 2012 in conjunction with extensive ethnographic data. Data collection was guided by the need to “construct a detailed story from raw data” (Langley, 1999) through aiming to act as what Barley (1990) describes as a “human camera.” Following the work on organizational ethnography (Kostera, 2007), we collected data through on-site visits, interviews, participant observations, archival data (such as internal company documents, press releases, websites, and news articles), and follow-up emails and phone conversations from 2001 to 2012. During this time, one of the authors visited Sonicbids’ offices in Boston three times—at the end of 2001, in June 2003, and in July 2008—while a hired research associate also conducted visits in October 2010. In each visit, the researchers spent from 2 to 5 weeks in the office in which they conducted interviews, shadowed the founder, and

attended company strategy meetings, lunch breaks, “gigs”1 of Sonicbids bands, and other events. Shadowing involved following the founder continuously in his daily workings (Czarniawska, 2007).

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 13/37

In March 2011, the research associate attended the big music event that Sonicbids sponsored in Austin, Texas, known as “South by Southwest” in which she informally met with the founder, staff, artists, and promoters. The founder and other members of the leadership team were also interviewed off-site when one of the authors and the research associate met them in a business location in Europe (August 2011). In addition, even though the intensive data collection period ended in 2012, the researchers contacted the founder and other interviewees several times through email and telephone to make clarifications and follow up on issues that arose during the study. Table 1 presents a general timeline of the case organization and the data produced (see also Mantere et al., 2012).

We conducted 31 interviews at various stages of the data collection process, as shown in Table 2. The interviews included the key stakeholders: founder, board members, and staff at different levels of the company; artists (independent musicians) who had benefitted from the company’s services; promoters (e.g. individuals who purchased musical talent, for example, heads of music festivals; owners of clubs, bars, and casinos); and shareholders who invested in the company. We included the artists and the promoters to lay out our ethnographic terrain and get a complete picture of the company, one that included clients. Specifically, we conducted six interviews with the founder, two members of the board of directors, the chief financial officer (CFO), the vice president (VP) of strategic programs, the marketing manager, and nine other staff members, as well as six American artists who signed up with Sonicbids, two promoters, and three shareholders.

Table 2. Interview data used for this study.

Interviews were semi-structured and lasted between 20 and 120 minutes. All were recorded and transcribed, except for the artists’ interviews which were not conducive to formal techniques because they took place at music events. For these interviews, which were also shorter (around 20 minutes), field notes were taken. In general, we used open- ended questions that allowed informants to relate chronologies, events, and situations (Mishler, 1986). Interview protocols largely focused on informants’ roles and relationships to the company, changes in their roles over the years, Sonicbids’ main contributions to the industry (we also clarified which industry), their own and the company’s main challenges, the uniqueness of the company, and Sonicbids’ culture. Our official data collection ended

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 14/37

in 2012 after the company’s resources were completely strained and the Board made the strategic decision to sell the company.

Data analysis

The data analysis drew from a combination of strategies used in other longitudinal studies of change (e.g. Langley, 1999; Mantere et al., 2012). It was conducted in three rounds that progressed from a detailed reading of the data to greater generality, with the ultimate goal to elaborate theory, as guided by similar studies in the field. To borrow a term from Pratt (2009), the “protagonists” of our analysis were the tensions manifested across all levels of change—individual, organizational, and industry.

The first step focused on a fine-grained reading of the data collected, including ethnographic, archival, and interview transcripts (Mantere et al., 2012). Specifically, (1) we sorted the data in three topical areas: (i) the founder’s story of creation, (ii) the company, and (iii) the music industry. These three topic areas roughly corresponded to levels of analysis: individual, organization, and industry-wide perspective. (2) Then, we wrote three descriptive manuscripts—one on the changes that occurred in the last 12 years in the industry, one on the changes in the company itself, and one on the founder (inevitably the last two were deeply interconnected). (3) Next, we reorganized the data into three general periods which roughly corresponded to the main tensions in Sonicbids’ development. These periods were “simply a way of structuring the description of events” (Langley, 1999: 703) and should not be viewed as linear, sequential processes. This step was particularly important for analyzing interview data since respondents freely discuss their experiences and often jumped back and forth from past to future. Thus, we marked specific interview quotes as “Period 1, Period 2, etc.” and rearranged them in designated periods that were broadly named as “moving in non-traditional directions,” “developing ways to serve struggling artists,” and “generating revenue to survive and expand.” The periods not only represented changes but also aimed to capture the temporal flows of bringing the past into the present and examining the present in anticipation of the future.

At this stage, we noticed that each period was marked by specific questions and tensions that crossed the three levels of analysis. Therefore, we returned to the data for each period to look for possible patterns. We began by searching for a possible “driving question” in each period. In Period 1, for example, we found that the major concern was “Who are the main stakeholders?” and by extension, “Who should Sonicbids focus on first?” The driving question for each period revealed different oppositional struggles, tensions, and sub-tensions for the three levels of analysis. Then, we traced how tensions surfaced in the language used and clustered them into categories of similar tensions

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 15/37

(which were in turn tied to the overall question for a given period). Actors often signal tension with emotional language (“frustrated,” “torn,” “anxiety”), dilemmas (marked by “I don’t understand,” “not sure,” “question,” “decision”), dualisms (“either,” “or,” “choice”), or strong words (“had to step down,” “crazy,” “cost,” “accused,” “challenge”) (Fairhurst and Putnam, 2017). Examples of quotes indicating tensions are shown in Appendix 1.

In the next step, we grouped the tensions across the three levels and the three periods (Figure 1 and Appendix 1); that is, for each period, we named the individual, organizational, and industry tensions noted under specific subheadings. Subsequently, guided by the literature (e.g. Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), we categorized the responses to these tensions; these refer broadly to different ways of reacting to tensions, dealing with them, or moving on—not necessarily resolving them. Our categories parallel the three broad responses in relational dialectics: either-or, both-and, and more-than (Putnam et al., 2016). To “name” a particular response, we questioned how organizational members treated the opposite poles, what actions they took to situate them in relation to each other, and how these actions changed in the flow of time. For either-or responses, we looked for evidence in the language or actions that supported a preference for one pole or ignoring the existence of the other one. For both-and responses, we looked for displays that indicated actors were oscillating between the two poles, in pursuit of an equilibrium, compromise, or neutralization; in other words, we located markers that indicated ways that actors bridged or attempted to balance competing goals. For more-than responses, we looked for signs of “reframing” the opposition or ways that the actors crafted a “third space” out of a contradiction.

Figure 1. Tensions, responses, and unintended consequences in change processes at Sonicbids.

Finally, for each period, we searched for any unintended effects, surprises, or unpredictable actions that surfaced from decisions taken in response to the driving

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 16/37

question. We focused on shock elements in the change process and effects that were not anticipated. To track these unintended consequences, we relied not only on the interviews but also on the supplementary ethnographic data that we had collected. Appendix 1 shows exemplar interview quotations of tensions and responses across the three levels for all three periods. The last column groups the unintended consequences per period.

The tensions of change

To conduct a multilevel, processual analysis of change at Sonicbids, we focus on three key periods that represented turning points or shifts in the company’s direction. As noted in our methods section, the three periods are: (1) moving in non-traditional directions, (2) developing ways to serve “the artistic middle class,” and (3) generating revenue to survive and expand. In each of these periods, we examine the tensions and responses to them for three levels of analysis: (1) individual-organizational, (2) organizational-stakeholder, and (3) industry-wide.

Period 1: moving in non-traditional directions

We noted in the case presentation and the event history of Table 1 that Sonicbids was founded during the “digital revolution” (Kusek and Leonhard, 2005) and capitalized on the wider social changes of the late 1990s which altered the ways that people shopped, searched for information, or read books. At this time, the Internet introduced a type of “democratization” that allowed artists of all types to access different audiences in ways never envisioned (Kot, 2009). In the music industry, a rise in digital sales alongside a sharp decline in record sales was egging artists toward live performances.

Although these wider changes could be seen as paving the way for an online music marketplace, the micro-changes induced by an individual who grasped the potential opportunities for “struggling artists” were important. By questioning the traditional musician-agent-promoter relationship, the founder of Sonicbids developed a new way of doing business that ultimately transferred power to a complex network of actors which, in turn, changed the industry. In this sense, change is more of a co-evolving process in which contexts were changing as the organizations were changing. Of course, in an interview in 2001 he noted, “questioning never comes without a price” so soon after he launched Sonicbids, he had to deal with the first set of tensions.

Individual-organizational tensions and responses

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 17/37

Micro-changes often occur through individual actions and interactions, particularly in providing leadership for an organization. In this case, the founder saw an opportunity: as he said, “I was an agent for years before I started Sonicbids … unless somebody made 3,000 a night we couldn’t take them on … So I thought, well where is everybody else going?” Noting an inspiration from the book Blur, he thought that focusing on the millions of “little guys” in the music industry (versus the elite players) could be a breakthrough. His idea was met with a lot of skepticism both from music industry experts and team members who wondered how “marginalizing the elite would impact (Sonicbids’) reputation” (interview with Panay, 2001). The founder used words and phrases such as “struggled,” “worried,” and “questioning comes with a price” to show the tension surrounding his proposal to move in non-traditional versus traditional directions.

Yet, the response to this tension was not to accept a binary either-or view of the opposition; rather, the founder and his team enacted an integrated approach through setting up a decentralized network of operations to counter the existing hierarchical model of the agent–musician relationship (traditional approach). Rather than abandoning their base, Sonicbids allowed both the “little guys” and “established elite” to take advantage of their services. Through this action, Sonicbids became a type of “eBay for musicians”; that is, artists of all types could sign onto the platform by paying a member fee, and people looking to buy their talents (“promoters”) would be able to “bid” for them. This new integrative model of finding a common ground between doing business in a non-traditional way while also engaging the traditional elite, redefined the roles of musicians, agents, and promoters through a complex decentralized network.

Organizational-stakeholder tensions and responses

In launching this “eBay for musicians,” however, Sonicbids encountered a new tension: should the company follow the accepted industry standard of focusing largely on artist sign-ups or should it move in a non-traditional way by getting promoters on board first? Some organizational members argued that to effectively “tap into an un-serviced market they should break industry norms and engage promoters in an active way; then the artists would follow” (interview with Panay, 2003). Yet, key staff members, including “old-timers” of the music business, insisted that bands (artists) were the number 1 priority, not the promoters, and that a plan that did not privilege artists would not be profitable.

In responding to these tensions, the Sonicbids management team, headed by the founder, reframed the opposition of artists first versus promoters first and thus redefined the relationship between these “poles.” Specifically, by focusing on “passive promoters,” the new business model eliminated the lines between traditional business categories:

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 18/37

promoters simply logged onto their Sonicbids accounts, saw a list of the different bands that applied, reviewed them online, and notified them if they were interested. By charging bands up to US$25 to apply (in the early 2000s), promoters were able to weed out the artists who sent mass applications, and by reviewing EPKs online, they were able to respond to artists quickly. “We make it easy for both sides,” the founder said (interview with Panay, 2003). As predicted, once promoters joined, bands followed: “Once the first promoter signed on, it was like getting your first credit card … others followed” (interview with Panay, 2003). Therefore, by the end of Sonicbids’ first year, 102 promoters had signed on.

By changing the sequencing of doing business, organizational members recast the two poles that were initially in a dialectical struggle by subsuming them under a new business model. It was no longer a question of “who do we go after first” but rather “how can these two groups benefit from each other.” This more-than approach, championed through an individual-organizational interplay of tensions, altered the context and the traditional music business model. This change also shifted the boundaries and role distinctions between promoters and artists.

Industry-wide tensions and responses

The digital revolution introduced a wider set of changes in the music business as the industry shifted away from selling records (until then, artists’ main source of income) to live performances. Through the EPK, Sonicbids took advantage of the digital revolution and promoted an alternative to the physical press kit—“better, faster, easier, and cheaper” (interview with Panay, 2003). While artists seemed to be on board with the wider contextual changes and industry shift from physical to digital, the more “traditional” side of the business, the promoters, who were used to doing things a certain way, were not. This issue was raised by staff who had been with the company since its early years—or as a product manager, who had been with the company since 2003 aptly said, “When we were only 12 people and fit in that little room down the street.” Experiencing the shift, these members wondered how it would impact Sonicbids’ stakeholders: “Using the technology was not a problem but understanding the business side of it … the shift from physical to digital … that was a big change” (L., manager, 2010).

To deal with what we called the “digital versus physical” tension, Sonicbids reframed the issue from an “either-or” opposition to a “both-and” and subsequently a “more-than” type response to tensions. Enhancing the website, ensuring it was “user-friendly,” and physically reaching out to individual promoters to help them understand the company’s value proposition were some of the actions taken to deal with this “hurdle.” According to

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 19/37

L., “we actually spent a lot of time meeting with these people one-to-one … it was all so hands-on.” In other words, tensions in the industry brought on by digital changes were reframed as complementary and handled through engaging the physical as well as the digital. In this type of reframing, opposite forces were incorporated inside each other to form a new whole. Thus, the digital system ended up embodying features of a physical one in order to benefit stakeholders. In addition, changes in the music industry emphasizing live performances reflected back on the organization-stakeholder context and made it possible to also reframe the digital and the physical into a new whole.

Unintended consequences

Yet, each of these changes entailed unintended consequences that called, in turn, for additional changes. As noted by a product manager (M., 2010), “any change you make brings another change that you may not have anticipated.” Neither the founder nor company members could anticipate “the masses of starving artists signing on to Sonicbids” (interview with Panay, 2003) nor the weight that these empowered artists would carry. In fact, as soon as artists stopped sending out traditional press kits (enabled by the introduction of the EPK), more demands ensued to guarantee promoter attention. This, in turn, resulted not only in new Sonicbids products and services (the “submission tracker”) but perhaps, more importantly, a change in company thinking (“we are delivering the promoters’ attention, not just a press kit”) and a change in industry norms about promoter accountability. At the end of this period, traditional power relationships and hierarchies looked dented as artists became empowered and promoters were asked to be more accountable for receiving submissions. These consequences did not just impact the direction that both the company and industry would take in “period 2”, but they propelled ground-breaking changes by setting the conditions for all tensions, responses, and ultimately changes that followed.

Period 2: developing the “artistic middle class”

By the end of 2003, several high-profile promoters had signed on (i.e. the Billboard Song Contest) and hundreds of new artists joined Sonicbids. These successes led to the company’s first million in sales. However, the explosive growth in “matching buyers and sellers of music” created new tensions which brought, in turn, a new set of changes.

Individual-organizational tensions and responses

As a former music agent, the founder had worked with big jazz names like Chick Corea, Sonny Rollins, and Al Di Meola, some of whom followed him to Sonicbids. But with the

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 20/37

masses of “starving artists” signing on to Sonicbids, Panay began to question his initial vision of an “eBay for musicians”; thus, strategic tensions rose over the company’s direction. In a strategy meeting in 2003, he posed the question of whether Sonicbids should break away from “big names” and focus on serving the mass market of “little names” which could be more profitable. Staff disagreed calling the move “too scary.” Even Panay struggled with these tensions, showed conflicted emotions, and feared the loss of friendships. “After all, [he had] lengthy personal relationships with some of these ‘big names’” (interview with Panay, 2008).

Despite pressures, Panay opted for what Champy (2008) describes as the “revolutionary model … to compete by seeing what others don’t.” He urged staff members to select one pole over the other, namely, to cultivate independent artists. When asked why he and Sonicbids decided to opt for one group, he answered, “it had to do with reading the times correctly and then taking a plunge” (interview with Panay, 2008). “Reading the times” meant understanding the ubiquity of digital piracy, the drop in record sales, the increase in live performances, and the growing trend for accessing music digitally. If record sales had not plummeted, live performances might have never become the main revenue source for a growing market of independent artists. Again, what we see here is a fluid context: as organizations are changing, the context is also changing which demands that organizations change again. Of course, this is happening as organizations are themselves changing the context in which they are found.

Choosing one pole—independent artists—came with personal costs for the founder, including doubts “not only about (his) decision but also about (his) value as a person,” especially when one of the “big names” severed his relationship with the company and “adorned (Panay) with horrible epithets” (interview with Panay, 2008).

Organizational-stakeholder tensions and responses

The tension surrounding what staff called “heavyweights” versus “unknowns” was evident at the organizational level as well, since it was unclear whether Sonicbids could be sustained without the support of “heavyweights” like jazz legends Sonny Rollins and Al di Meola. As one member said, “(Around this time) there was a lot of frustration … (it was) a tough decision …” (J, 2010). However, by 2007, the Sonicbids website explicitly described the mission of the company “to help create and empower an Artistic Middle Class through the use of innovative technology” (June 2007), clearly making a selection in responding to the tension above.

Industry-wide tensions

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 21/37

Rising “indie power,” a result of Sonicbids’ success, created a turning point in an industry that was already undergoing changes. As technologically savvy, young artists who capitalized on the Internet gained revenue-generating capabilities, the music industry struggled between evolution and revolution as potential responses to a changing marketplace. As the founder noted in email correspondence (2007), it had become clear that the future was one where “artists of all types (could leverage) the power of the Internet (to) build careers from the ground up, on their own terms” and called this a “revolution of sorts where we break from the mold of the last hundred years.” These changes did not just shift the industry but also the boundaries between artists and organizations, altering past dependent relationships and leading artists to form their own businesses.

Therefore, by giving independent artists power, Sonicbids carved a “third space” in the music industry. Through shifts in power, decentralized networks of delivering services, and a new mass market of profitable “little markets,” the industry transcended and actually embraced both evolution and revolution. Evolution was the gradual rise of independent artists, an artistic middle class, and power shifts through tech-savvy artists who managed their own careers and revenue-generating capability. As the mass market of empowered artists replaced the “broadcast era” of big names, a revolution emerged, one that transformed the music industry.

Unintended consequences

Changes at the industry level influenced Sonicbids when organizational members experienced unintended effects. Panay admitted that he “could never foresee how the creation of an artistic middle class would alter power structures in the music industry so dramatically” (interview with Panay, 2010). Nor could he foresee how industry changes would require Sonicbids to drastically change itself.

As the “artistic middle class” gained power, artists began asking for “no submission fees.” They were saying, “Why should I be paying you when I can do all this for free on Twitter and Facebook?” (N., staff, 2010). According to the VP for Strategic Programs (2010), the change in submissions happened quicker than they thought, partly because of the changes that Sonicbids itself had created. The EPK was no longer a “strong marketing tool to attract both members and venture capital,” and by 2010, the company had to change to a tiered pricing system in which access to some promoters was completely free, while a “super-sonic” membership fee allowed access to an unlimited number of promoters. By 2011, the decision was formally enacted to move gradually to no submission fees. Membership fees were, however, the company’s main source of revenue

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 22/37

(US$4m in 2010). In other words, nurturing young, tech-savvy artists in a mass market created the unanticipated potential to put the company out of business, especially at a time when the economy was imploding.

Period 3: generating revenue—survival, expansion, and exponential growth

This period introduced another set of critical tensions regarding how Sonicbids could continue to grow, especially with an economic downturn and major changes in the social media landscape. Companies like MySpace began to provide substitutes for EPKs, and social media outlets, such as Facebook and YouTube, became more serious competitors for Sonicbids than any direct competition in the music industry.

Individual-organizational tensions

In response to these concerns and the push towards “no-fee submissions,” which resulted from the unintended changes brought in the music industry by Sonicbids itself, the founder was faced with a new tension: how could he offset the loss in revenue? On one hand, the no-cost listings with no submission fees won back a large number of deactivated members, so membership began to skyrocket again. But downsizing seemed inevitable. Letting people go caused immense anxiety: “these are people with families, people we shared Thanksgiving with” (interview with Panay, 2011). And, it was not a sufficient change to keep the company on track. Faced then with a decision between “full versus partial changes,” the founder argued that turning to brands and marketers was a necessary direction, even though opposition from the Board was causing him stress and burnout. Although staff members were used to “the company transforming itself every couple of years” (BB., staff, 2011) and responded positively to changes, Panay mentioned repeatedly in emails and conversations that he felt “exhausted.”

To address ongoing tensions over “full versus partial changes,” Panay adopted a “both- and” way of integrating opposites which seemed to eventually lead to a “selection.” First, he hired a new financial controller, rejuvenating a non-functioning finance department, and strengthening the leadership team. Then, he invested in both personal and company loans in the transition to a no-submission-fee system. Most importantly, he fought to bring on alternative sources of generating revenue by seriously going after brands such as Jeep, Zippo, and Gap who had previously reached out to Sonicbids for their marketing campaigns.

Organizational-stakeholder tensions

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 23/37

At the organizational level, staff saw Panay’s move towards brands as “selling out” and some even thought he should resign. One younger staff member told us that “to remain true to Sonicbids’ mission of promoting independent artists (they could) not sell out by engaging in ‘commercial performances’” (W., 2010). Another told us that he had “stormed into (Panay’s) office to say ‘I don’t understand why we are choosing to sell out like this’” (J., interview, 2010). The VP for Strategic programs disagreed with them: “Brands are really interested in music now and have become income for artists … there are gigs for licensing and advertising” (KT, 2010). And, while the Board expressed skepticism as well, other staff such as a special projects manager who had been with Sonicbids seven years saw the new focus on brands as a “sign that the company manages change well.” The fact that “we figured this out and were able to touch our financial goals (after the market moved to no submission fees) is a testament to our team and to having the right mindset for maintaining market lead” (H., 2010).

All proponents of the move toward brand advertising (Brands) saw that reframing the “true to mission versus selling out” tension was essential. As H. (2010) said, “breaking old habits is hard … but (we needed) a change in philosophy … we die without this move.” H. and others saw Brands as “a new patron of the arts” that offered independent musicians “even more cache.” Therefore, Panay and Sonicbids reframed the tension by forming a new whole: branding as part of the music lifestyle. Panay reminded the Board that Sonicbids had actually entered the brand business in 2003 when the auto manufacturer Jeep hired them to stage a festival. Through this new “whole,” the company extended their network of artists-promoters-fans to marketers, and by 2011, Sonicbids established a Brands Division that worked exclusively with companies who wanted to increase brand awareness and promote products and services through music. The company website changed in 2011 to reflect this: “The bands, fans, and promoters who come together through Sonicbids create a powerful resource for sponsors looking to connect with the lifestyle of those driven by a desire to make, promote, and listen to great music” (accessed August 2011). This “reframing” response shifted the boundary between the organization and its stakeholders again.

In the wider debate of “being true to our mission versus selling out,” some staff members also raised the issue of how the company was organized. Eleven years into its existence, Sonicbids was still organized around a CEO-founder model and centralized decision making. Yet, to remain an innovative tech company, some staff felt that “knowledgeable tech people should be making decisions, not the CEO” (M., 2010). This struggle was compounded by changes in moving from a start-up culture to a “business-y” environment; tensions emerged as the company moved from a “very youthful music company where the

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 24/37

average age was probably 26” (ST., 2010) to a more mature, “less flat,” more “business-y” type culture “with mature engineers, software developers, and business minded staff—a mix that is more balanced around skills and experience rather than cultural fit” (J.D., 2010). Struggles over these tensions and way to enact changes were quite strenuous but remained unaddressed at this stage.

Industry-wide tensions

As Sonicbids grappled with these tensions, the music industry experienced major changes in the role of fans—again brought on by some of the changes described above. Independent artists had at this point emerged as “trend-setters that influence the market” and fans wanted direct contact with them. In what was called “the broadcast era,” audiences were seen as an “amorphous mass of people” that supported artists. But with the advent of social media, individual fans demanded interactions and relationships with their chosen artists. On average, Sonicbids’ artists interacted with each of their 1300 fans, at least once a day, through a tweet, a Facebook posting, or a blog (interview with Panay, 2011). This complex and changing role created internal tensions in organizations and the industry, as well as a boundary change between organizations and yet another group of stakeholders, fans.

By 2011, the music industry had become a collaboration among many actors as it moved from the monologue of the broadcast model that transmitted music through radio, television, and records to a dialogue in which fans interacted with artists on a daily basis. The role of fans, alongside other stakeholders of the industry, was reframed to being a co- producer and co-creator of music, even though this was another unintended consequence of the changes enacted at this time.

Unintended consequences

Sonicbids responded to industry changes, but in the process had changed itself. As an outcome of turning to Brands, Sonicbids developed a 20-staff member division that soon became the strongest unit in the company and orchestrated marketing campaigns for companies as diverse as Midas Brakes, Converse, and Red Bull. Brand revenue became the pillar of music promotion and surpassed the sales of records in generating income. Yet, the huge growth in brand market revenue which rose to US$3m in four years had an overwhelming demand on company resources, a development which led Panay (interview, 2011) to ask, “Are we going to drown in the storm that we created?”

In addition, the founder admitted that “drastic changes had to be made for the company to make the next step to a full-fledged cutting-edge tech company,” and shared that

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 25/37

“everything is now on the table, including the possibility to sell the company.” Staff at Sonicbids wondered about the cost of continual change. Does continuously adapting to market conditions lead to “the risk of cannibalizing … our own business? … it is fun and exciting … but we are not sure how we really go forward and keep our soul intact” (L.,

2010).2Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the aforementioned tensions, responses, and unintended consequences driving the process of change at Sonicbids in the three periods analyzed.

Discussion

Our study demonstrated how change-related activities and events crossed multiple organizational levels that mutually interacted with each other. We see for example how the founder’s decision in Period 1 to serve both struggling artists and elites interfaced the individual-organizational level with institutional practices, as it drew on changes in the music industry’s evolving focus on live performances. Similarly, in Period 2, the rise of indie power at the organizational level redefined and shifted the dynamics among artists, agents, and promoters at the industry level. Activities that crossed different levels also intervened reflexively, in that the “revolution” of independent entrepreneurs at the industry level in Period 2 shifted Sonicbids’ mission (organizational level) to focus on Brands in Period 3. These changes across levels sometimes occurred simultaneously (i.e. the digital revolution and serving struggling artists) and at other times followed each other sequentially (i.e. indie power led to entrepreneurial practices that altered Sonicbids’ economic base through demands for free submissions). In effect, changing was a continual experience driven by a complex set of interrelationships within and across organizational levels as opportunities became threats and vice versa. In this way, the organization was changing while it was being changed through aligning choices and activities within and across levels.

Importantly, the pattern of tensions across periods suggested that radical change or major turning points occurred when power shifts infused different levels (artist-agent at the meso-level crossed into music industry at the macro-level). Independent artists became empowered through the EPK, a Sonicbids practice that catered to them and their changing role in the music industry. Thus, changes that initially occurred at the individual- organizational level transformed an industry in permeating organizational and institutional environments.

This reflexive ongoing pattern of changing altered both contexts and boundaries. In response to the first research question (RQ1) as to how organizational contexts and

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 26/37

boundaries changed, this study suggested that each level served as a background or context for the other levels. Specifically, the music industry that served as a context for Sonicbids’ activities was clearly in flux, for example, advent of digital piracy, growth in live performances, and changing role of fans. Boundaries between levels were also fluid. In particular, stakeholders at the meso-level (i.e. independent artists) often became important organizational players through influencing Sonicbids’ structures, leadership, and decision practices; for example, artists became their own agents; or brands developed into “a new patron of the arts” that led to a new Sonicbids division. As boundaries between levels became increasingly porous or fluid, organizational internal processes shifted to adapt.

In response to RQ2, unintended consequences arose naturally in conjunction with changes. No one could have anticipated that designing a digital system for “starving artists” would create an empowered artistic middle class that would then lead to an industry-wide revolution. Moreover, unanticipated consequences often grew out of successes rather than failures. For example, the consequence of moving to free submissions stemmed in part from Sonicbids’ success in developing indie power. In turn, this practice produced new tensions surrounding organizational mission and economic survival. Appendix 1 and Figure 1 identify the unintended consequences for each set of tensions and illustrate how these unanticipated effects fueled additional tensions.

In response to RQ3, the types of tensions and responses to them, we see that they differed across organizational levels. Specifically, founder decisions typified tensions at the individual-organizational level: for example, serving struggling artists versus elites or relying on big names versus less known names. For the founder, these tensions represented either-or struggles that produced anguish and stress over choosing one pole and accepting the consequences of his decisions, for example, dissolving friendships with big name clients or downsizing to save the company. Efforts to integrate poles, such as serving both struggling artists and elites, or developing partial fee plans often led to an either-or selection over time (choosing struggling artists and moving to free submissions).

At the organizational-stakeholder level, tensions were tied to the shifting roles of clientele, that is, artists, agents, and promoters. They centered specifically on who was privileged and who was marginalized in any change process. This type of tension triggered creative responses, reframing, redefining relationships, and thinking outside of the box to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders. At the industry/macro-level, the types of tensions focused on the music industry itself, especially opportunities and threats, such as digital versus physical submission systems and evolution versus revolution. Responses were creative

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 27/37

ways of aligning opposites—folding one pole inside the other (physical inside the digital) or creating a third space to allow for both evolution and revolution. In effect, the three levels differed in terms of the types of tensions that emerged and the responses to them.

Moreover, three patterns of tensions and responses to them surfaced from this study (RQ4). First, selecting one pole or either-or responses were more likely to occur at the individual-organizational level linked to leadership, mission, and organizational vision. Second, both-and, integrating, balance, and compromising responses seem tightly linked to unintended consequences from past changes that colored future actions. They also often evolved into selection or an either-or response over time; for example, tier pricing of submission fees led to no fees over time. Third, more-than responses such as reframing, transcendence, and creating a third space operated at the strategic level in which the organization redefined and created a new whole; for example, redefining fans as co- producers or reframing brand marketing as a new music lifestyle. Organizational actors employed more-than approaches at organizational-stakeholder levels as well as industry- environment interfaces.

Drawing on Figure 1 and the schematic representation of tensions, responses, and unintended consequences, we constructed a general model of change processes and relationships. Figure 2 depicts the reflexive relationships of multilevel change. The diagram on the left represents the interactions of the three levels of change—the individual (micro), the organizational (meso), and the industry (macro)—as permeable concentric circles in which change on one level influences the other levels continuously. The boundaries between levels represented by the dotted lines are fluid and constantly changing due to the ongoing tensions and responses that generate continuous change. The circles (on the left) demonstrate a “top-down view” of what is actually a three- dimensional (3D) cone (on the right) that signifies the cyclicality and reflexivity of change as it moves constantly in a 3D plane across time. Tensions and responses to them generate movement which introduces a new set of tensions that develops through a continuous cyclical pattern. In effect, Figure 2 embodies a space-time movement in which the cone moves both along its axis (through tensions-responses) and across time (through the resulting intended and unintended consequences of tensions and responses to them). At the same time, the lines between the three levels are shifting and permeable (shown by the dotted lines) as they influence each other, but also as one level dominates the other two in different periods. To illustrate, for Sonicbids, the tensions and responses at the micro-level seemed more defining of change in Period 1, the macro-level in Period 2, and the meso in Period 3.

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 28/37

Figure 2. Reflexive relationships of multilevel change.

Figure 2 also shows how unintended consequences of choice set the stage for organizational changes. Change is therefore shown as a dynamic, non-linear, continuous phenomenon, sometimes characterized by chaotic dynamics (Langley et al., 2013). As the tension/response arrows demonstrate, consequences emerge on their “own volition” without an identifiable agent of change (MacKay and Chia, 2013), as noted by the “unowned” (p. 211) view of change. Consistent with this position, managers as conscious agents can act purposively, but their choices and deliberate actions are necessarily partial and, as such, unintended consequences are integral to the change process, perhaps as instigators of change.

Conclusion

Our study shows how change is a reflexive interplay among tensions, responses, and unintended consequences across three different organizational levels. As such, it makes several contributions. First, in theorizing about change, this study illustrates how change- related activities and events at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels reconstitute organizing. These levels are in flux and mutually interacting with each other, so changes in one arena interrelate with and interfuse changes in other arenas—sometimes sequentially but often simultaneously. This process is reflexive in that the act of changing reflects back on and alters the process of change itself. Therefore, changing is a continual experience in that tensions related to choices and consequences from them fold back on organizing to generate more tensions, which in turn promote further change.

Unlike the traditional view of stability versus change that treats the two either as a binary or as a complementary dualism, we contend that what promotes stability produces change

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 29/37

and vice versa (See also Kassinis and Panayiotou, 2017). Thus, the two are intertwined and related to the process of forging order (stability) out of disorder (change/chaos). It is this continual fluctuation between order and disorder that cast stability and change as paradoxically interwoven.

Our study also questions the static nature of boundaries; that is, boundaries shift as tensions and unintended consequences impinge on change. Thus, boundaries across organizational levels are not rigid constructs, but shift dynamically during changes. In addition, consistent with the “unowned view” of change, our study places unintended consequences at the center of the change process—not as a negative outcome, but as an integral part of generating tensions that fuel ongoing change. This study also contributes to the growing literature on organizational tensions in showing how they co-evolve and become interconnected across organizational levels. Specifically, patterns of tensions and responses to them may emerge as level-specific with either-or tensions tied to leadership choices and reframing and transformation responses linked to strategic levels.

Finally, this study and the model that it proposes (Figure 2) have important implications for the “practice” of change. Specifically, this model showcases the significance of an individual actor in bringing about change, even though everyday micro-actions may seem “unimportant” and “trivial” at the time. More importantly, it elevates relationality through demonstrating how events that evolve over time become intertwined with actions and interactions across multiple organizational levels. These processes also diffuse the negativity that often surrounds “tensions” and “unintended consequences” through emphasizing ways to respond creatively to them rather than striving to control them.

Appendix 1. Tensions, responses, and unintended consequences per period (exemplar interview quotations).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Editor, Ann Langley, and the three anonymous reviewers for their powerful suggestions during the review process. Christina Kyprianou and Manolis Diakourakis provided valuable assistance in various stages of the study. The interviewees who shared their insights made the study possible; we remain grateful for their time and for the access we were granted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 30/37

authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. A “gig” can include a live performance, participation in music festivals or contests, opportunities to have music featured in movies, commercials or other promotional live events, and licensing opportunities (https://www.sonicbids.com).

2. In January 2013, Sonicbids was sold to a Guggenheim-owned company, Backstage, for approximately US$15m.

References Abdallah, C, Denis, JL, Langley, A (2011) Having your cake and eating it too: Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24: 333–348. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Ashcraft, KL, Trethewey, A (2004) Developing tension: An agenda for applied research on the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research 32: 171–181. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Asiskovitch, S (2009) Digging their own graves: Unexpected consequences of institutional design and welfare state changes. Social Policy & Administration 43: 226–244. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Bakhtin, MM (1981) Discourse in the novel. In: Holquist, M (ed.) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 259–422. Google Scholar

Balogun, J, Johnson, G (2005) From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies 26: 1573–1601. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Barge, JK, Lee, M, Maddux, K. (2008) Managing dualities in planned change initiatives. Journal of Applied Communication Research 36(4): 364–390. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Barley, SR (1990) Images of imaging: Notes on doing longitudinal field work. Organization Science 1: 220–247. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 31/37

Baxter, LA (2011) Voicing Relationships: A Dialogic Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar

Baxter, LA, Montgomery, BM (1996) Relating: Dialogues and Dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar

Benson, JK (1977) Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 1–21. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Berglund, J, Werr, A (2000) The invincible character of management consulting rhetoric: How one blends incommensurates while keeping them apart. Organization 7: 633–655. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Bouwman, K (2010) Interview with Panos Panay, CEO of Sonicbids. HitQuarters.com. Available at: ht tp://www.hitquarters.com/index.php3?page=intrview%2Fopar%2Fintrview_Panos_Panay_Interview.ht ml. Google Scholar

Caves, R (2000) Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar

Champy, J (2008) Compete by seeing what others don’t: How Sonicbids spotted a $15 billion market. In: Champy J (ed.) Outsmart! How to Do What Your Competitors Can’t. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, pp. 20–37. Google Scholar

Cho, S, Mathiassen, L, Robey, R (2007) Dialectics of resilience: A multi-level analysis of a telehealth innovation. Journal of Information Technology 22: 24–35. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Cortell, A, Peterson, S (2001) Limiting the unintended consequences of institutional change. Comparative Political Studies 34: 768–799. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Czarniawska, B (2007) Shadowing and Other Techniques for Doing Fieldwork in Modern Societies. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press. Google Scholar

Das, TK, Kumar, R (2010) Interpartner sensemaking in strategic alliances: Managing cultural differences and internal tensions. Management Decision 48: 17–36. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Das, TK, Teng, BS (2000) Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science 11: 77–101. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

De Cock, C, Rickards, T (1996) Thinking about organizational change: Towards two kinds of process

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 32/37

intervention. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 4: 233–251. Google Scholar | Crossref

De Rond, M, Bouchikhi, H (2004) On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science 15: 56–69. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Doyle, M, Claydon, T, Buchanan, D (2000) Mixed results, lousy process: The management experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management 11: 59–80. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Engeström, Y, Sannino, A (2011) Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24: 368–387. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Fairhurst, GT, Putnam, LL (2014) Organizational discourse analysis. In: Putnam, LL, Mumby, DK (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 271–296. Google Scholar

Fairhurst, GT, Putnam, LL (2017) Analyzing organizational oppositions: Developing a discursively sensitive grounded theory. Paper presented at the European Group for Organizational Studies, Copenhagen, 6–8 July. Google Scholar

Fairhurst, GT, Cooren, F, Cahill, D (2002) Discursiveness, contradiction and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly 15: 501–540. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals

Farjoun, M (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review 35: 202–225. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Farjoun, M (2017) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. In: Langley, A, Tsoukas, H (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 87–109. Google Scholar

Fox, M, Wrenn, B (2001) A broadcasting model for the music industry. JMM: The International Journal on Media Management 3: 112–119. Google Scholar | Crossref

Gibbs, J (2009) Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space, and culture. Human Relations 62: 905–935. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Groleau, C, Demers, C, Engestrom, Y (2011) Guest editorial. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24: 330–332. Google Scholar | Crossref

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 33/37

Haddadj, S (2006) Paradoxical process in the organizational change of the CEO succession: A case study from France. Journal of Organizational Change Management 19: 447–456. Google Scholar | Crossref

Hargrave, TJ, Van de Ven, AH (2017) Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies 38: 319–339. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Harris, LC, Ogbonna, E (2002) The unintended consequences of culture interventions: A study of unexpected outcomes. British Journal of Management 13: 31–49. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Hegel, GWF (1969) The Philosophy of History (trans. Sibree, J ). New York: Wiley. Google Scholar

Jabri, M (2016) Rethinking Organizational Change: The Role of Dialogue, Dialectic & Polyphony in the Organization. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar

Janssens, M, Steyaert, C (1999) The world in two and a third way out? The concept of duality in organization theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management 15: 121–139. Google Scholar | Crossref

Jarzabkowski, P, Lê, JK, Van de Ven, AH (2013) Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization 11: 245–280. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Jay, J (2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal 56: 137–159. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Jian, G (2007) Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational change: A process model. Management Communication Quarterly 21: 5–28. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Johansson, C, Stohl, C (2012) Cultural competence and institutional contradictions: The hydropower referendum. Journal of Applied Communication Research 40: 329–349. Google Scholar | Crossref

Kassinis, G, Panayiotou, A (2017) The Helix of change: A visual metaphor. European Management Review 14: 143–163. Google Scholar | Crossref

Klarner, P, Raisch, S (2013) Move to the beat—Rhythms of change and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal 56: 160–184. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Kostera, M (2007) Organisational Ethnography: Methods and Inspirations. Warsaw: Studentlitteratur.

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 34/37

Google Scholar

Kot, G (2009) Ripped—How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music. New York: Scribner. Google Scholar

Kusek, D, Leonhard, G (2005) The Future of Music—Manifesto for the Digital Music Revolution. Boston, MA: Berklee Press. Google Scholar

Langley, A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review 24: 691–710. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Langley, A, Tsoukas, H (2010) Introducing “perspectives on process organization studies.” In: Hernes, T, Maitlis, S (eds) Process, Sensemaking, and Organizing. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1– 26. Google Scholar | Crossref

Langley, A, Tsoukas, H (2017) Introduction: Process thinking, process theorizing and process researching. In: Langley, A, Tsoukas, H (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Process Organizational Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 1–25. Google Scholar | Crossref

Langley, A, Smallman, C, Tsoukas, H. (2013) Process studies of change in organization and management. Academy of Management Journal 56: 1–13. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Lewis, L, Isbell, M, Koschmann, M (2010) Collaborative tensions: Practitioners’ experiences of interorganizational relationships. Communication Monographs 77: 460–479. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Lüscher, L, Lewis, M (2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51: 221–240. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

MacKay, RB, Chia, R (2013) Choice, chance, and unintended consequences in strategic change: A process understanding of the rise and fall of Northco Automotive. Academy of Management Journal 56: 208–230. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

McKinley, W, Scherer, AG (2000) Some unanticipated consequences of organizational restructuring. Academy of Management Review 25: 35–752. Google Scholar | Crossref

Mantere, S, Schildt, H, Sillince, J (2012) Reversal of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal 55: 172–196. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 35/37

Marx, K (1906) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. New York: Modern Library. Google Scholar

Medved, CE, Morrison, K, Dearing, JW. (2001) Tensions in community health improvement initiatives: Communication and collaboration in a managed care environment. Journal of Applied Communication Research 29: 137–152. Google Scholar | Crossref

Merton, RK (1936) The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review 1: 894–904. Google Scholar | Crossref

Meyer, CB (2006) Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in postmerger processes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 42: 397–419. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Meisel, J, Sullivan, T (2002) The impact of the Internet on the law and economics of the music industry. Info 4: 16–22. Google Scholar | Crossref

Mishler, E (1986) Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar

Nicotera, A, Clinkscales, M (2010) Nurses at the nexus: A case study in structurational divergence. Health Communication 25: 32–49. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline

Page, W, Carey, C (2010) Adding up the UK music industry for 2009. Available at: http://www.prsform usic.com/economics Google Scholar

Pratt, M (2009) From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal 52 (5): 856–862. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Putnam, LL, Fairhurst, GT, Banghart, S (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals 10: 65–171. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Quinn, RE, Cameron, KS (1988) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar

Schad, J, Lewis, MW, Raisch, S. (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals 10: 5–64. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 36/37

Seo, MG, Creed, WED (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review 27: 222–247. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Sheep, M, Fairhurst, G, Khazanchi, S (2017) Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies 38: 463–488. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

Siggelkow, N, Rivkin, J (2006) When exploration backfires; Unintended consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management Journal 49: 779–795. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Smith, W, Lewis, M (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review 36: 381–403. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Sterman, J, Repenning, N, Kofman, F (1997) Unanticipated side effects of successful quality programs: Exploring a paradox of organizational improvement. Management Science 43: 503–521. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Topping, A (2009) Quiet revolution rages as web-savvy bands learn how to rule the airwaves. Guardian.co.uk. Available at: http://gu.com/p/27n6m. Google Scholar

Tsoukas, H, Chia, R (2002) On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science 13: 567–582. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Van de Ven, AH, Poole, MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 20: 510–540. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

Widran, J (2009) Special interview with Panos Panay, Founder and CEO of Sonicbids. Songwriter Universe. Available at: http://www.songwriteruniverse.com/panospanay123.htm Google Scholar

Author biographies

Alexia Panayiotou (EdD, Harvard University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Business and Public Administration at the University of Cyprus. Her research interests include the role of paradox and tensions in organizational life, especially in changing industries; the representation of management and organizations in popular culture; organizational space and symbolism; feminist analysis of organizations; and visuality and organizational narratives. Her work has appeared, among others, in Organization, Management Learning, the Journal of Management Inquiry, and the European Management Review. Her article “Paradoxes of change” (co-authored with G. Kassinis), featured in the best paper proceedings of the Academy of Management, received the

2021/1/28 Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change - Alexia Panayiotou, Linda L Putnam, George Kassinis, 2019

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1476127017734446 37/37

2016 Best Paper Award in the Academy’s Organizational Development and Change division, and was a finalist for the all-Academy Dexter Award. She has served as an Associate Editor of the European Management Review and is currently an Associate Editor of Management Learning.

Linda L Putnam (PhD, University of Minnesota) is a Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research interests include paradoxes and contradictions in organizations, organizational discourse analysis, and conflict management. She is the co-editor of 11 books and her published articles appear in such journals as Academy of Management Review, Human Relations, Organization Studies, and Negotiation Journal. She is a distinguished scholar of the National Communication Association, a fellow of the International Communication Association and the International Association for Conflict Management, and the recipient of life-time achievement awards from the International Association for Conflict Management and Management Communication Quarterly.

George Kassinis (PhD, Princeton University) is an Associate Professor of Strategy in the Department of Business and Public Administration at the University of Cyprus. His research interests include Strategy, Sustainability, Social Entrepreneurship, Corporate Governance, and Corporate Social Responsibility. He has published in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Production and Operations Management, and Journal of Business Ethics.