Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-ff9ft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-17T18:12:15.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solving Paradox by Increasing Technological Capacity: A Critique of the Concept of Business Model Innovation at TikTok

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2022

Xin Li Open the ORCID record for Xin Li [Opens in a new window]
Xin Li*
Affiliation:
Newcastle University Business School, UK Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper comments on Yulun Ma and Yue Hu's (2021) recent article ‘Business Model Innovation and Experimentation in Transforming Economies: ByteDance and TikTok’. It argues that TikTok's international success is not due to so-called business model innovation; instead, it is because ByteDance has overcome three major hurdles facing emerging market firms pursuing internationalization. It also posits that the case of TikTok offers inspiration for theorizing paradox, namely, individuals and organizations can solve paradoxical tensions by increasing capacity through the use of advanced technologies.

Keywords

business model innovationemerging marketinternationalizationparadoxtechnology

Information

Type
Dialogue, Debate, and Discussion
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 203 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Deputy Editor Johann Peter Murmann

References

REFERENCES

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. 1989. Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hymer, S. H. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., & Wong, V. 1996. Principles of marketing: The European edition. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. 2021a. Quantum approach to organizational paradox: A Copenhagen perspective. Academy of Management Review, 46(2): 412–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X. 2021b. Solving paradox by reducing expectation. Academy of Management Review, 46(2): 406–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., & Zhu, N. 2016. Red Collar Group: Smart factor opens new era of manufacturing (青岛红领集团:“魔幻工厂” 开启新制造时代), Guangming Daily, April 29, 2016, page 5 (《光明日报》, 2016 年04月29日 05 版). Available from URL: https://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2016-04/29/nw.D110000gmrb_20160429_7-05.htmGoogle Scholar
Luo, Y., Sun, J., & Wang, S. L. 2011. Emerging economy copycats: Capability, environment, and strategy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2): 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Y., & Hu, Y. 2021. Business model innovation and experimentation in transforming economies: ByteDance and TikTok. Management and Organization Review, 17(2): 382–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markides, C. 2006. Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1): 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, M. E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Doz, Y. L. 1987. The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and global vision. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Ramachandran, J., & Pant, A. 2010. The liabilities of origin: An emerging economy perspective on the costs of doing business. In Devinney, T. M., Pedersen, T., & Tihanyi, L. (Eds.), Advances in international management: The past, present and future of international business and management: 231–265. New York: Emerald.Google Scholar
Rugman, A. M. 1981. Inside the multinationals: The economics of internal markets. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Saunders, J., & Fu, G. 1997. Dual branding: How corporate names add value. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6(1): 40–48.Google Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381–403.Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., Jarzabkowski, P., Lewis, M. W., & Langley, A. 2017. The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. 2017. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38(3–4): 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teece, D. J. 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3): 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, P. J. 2010. Cost innovation: preparing for a ‘value-for-money' revolution. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3): 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaheer, S. 1995. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 341–363.Google Scholar