Solving the Quality Dilemma: Emergent Quality Management

  • Tomas BackströmEmail author
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 255)


The Emergent Quality Management paradigm combine the two sides of the dichotomy imposed by the dilemmas of the production system: on the one hand side exploitation, stability, control and efficiency and, on the other hand, exploration, adaptability, creativity and effectiveness. The two sides—actors’ exploration and the structures of exploitation—are interconnected and reinforce each other. Actors and structures are always interconnected with each other in a circular causality. It is through the interactions between the actors that the structures emerge, and these structures organize the activities of the actors. The conflict in goals between exploration and exploitation at individual and team levels is thus transcended. This is a theoretical transcendence, meaning that by using the Emergent Quality Management paradigm it becomes obvious that the dichotomy is not a problem that must be managed, but a necessary feature of wholeness.


Emergent Approach Contextual Ambidexterity Ekvall Independent Subsystems Fine-grained Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, P. S. (1999). Building better bureaucracies. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), 36–47.Google Scholar
  3. Adler, P. S., & Boris, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. (1993, Spring). Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants. Sloan Management Review, 34(3), 85–94.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenic approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Backström, T. (2013). Managerial rein control and the Rheo task of leadership. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 15(4), 76–90.Google Scholar
  9. Backström, T., & Döös, M. (2008). Relatonics–a key concept for networked organizations. In G. D. Putnik & M. M. Cunha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations (Vol. 3, pp. 1367–1374). Hershey, PA: Idea Group, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Backström, T., Moström Åberg, M., Köping Olsson, B., Wilhelmson, L., & Åteg, M. (2013). Manager’s task to support integrated autonomy at the workplace. Results from an intervention. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(22), 20–31. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v8n22p20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Backström, T., & Söderberg, T. (2016). Self-organisation and group creativity. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation, 2, 65–79.Google Scholar
  12. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 27, 238–256.Google Scholar
  13. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  14. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  16. Cooper, R. G. (1990, May–June). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for manageing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, R. G. (2011). Perspective: The innovation dilemma: How to innovate when market is mature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(S1), 2–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 1005–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar—Adventures in the simple and the complex. London: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
  20. Ghoshal, S., & Barlett, C. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and orgazational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagström, T., Backström, T., & Göransson, S. (2009). Sustainable competence: Reproduction and innovation in a bank. The Learning Organization, 16(3), 237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haken, H. (1996). Principles of brain functioning. A synergetic approach to brain activity, behavior and cognition. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Hazy, J. K., & Backström, T. (2013). Human interaction dynamics (HID): An emerging paradigm for management research. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 15(4), i–ix.Google Scholar
  27. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.Google Scholar
  31. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Designing and enabling spaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation: From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pot, F. D. (2011). Workplace innovation for better jobs and performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(4), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organzational culture and leadership—A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solé, R., & Goodwin, B. (2000). Signs of life—How complexity pervades biology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, A., & Helfat, C. (2009). Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science, 20(4), 718–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Teglborg-Lefevre, A.-C. (2010). Modes of approach to employee-driven innovation in France: An empirical study. Transfer, 16(2), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Westerman, G., McFarlan, F. M., & Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17(2), 230–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Xu, Q., Chen, J., Xie, Z., Liu, J., Zheng, G., & Wang, Y. (2007). Total innovation management: A novel paradigm of innovation management in the 21st century. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Innovation, Design and EngineeringMälardalen UniversityEskilstunaSweden

Personalised recommendations