ArticlePDF Available

Toward A Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing

April 2011
Academy of Management Review 36(2)

April 2011
36(2)

DOI:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958

Authors:

Wendy K. Smith

University of Delaware

Marianne Lewis

University of Cincinnati

As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, contradictory demands intensify. To understand and explain such tensions, academics and practitioners are increasingly adopting a paradox lens. We review the paradox literature, categorizing types and highlighting fundamental debates. We then present a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, which depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability—peak performance in the present that enables success in the future. This review and the model provide the foundation of a theory of paradox.

Alternative Approaches to Managing Organizational Tensions

…

Figures - uploaded by Wendy K. Smith

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Wendy K. Smith

Content may be subject to copyright.

TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX:

A DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL

OF ORGANIZING

WENDY K. SMITH

University of Delaware

MARIANNE W. LEWIS

University of Cincinnati

As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive,

contradictory demands intensify. To understand and explain such tensions, academ-

ics and practitioners are increasingly adopting a paradox lens. We review the para-

dox literature, categorizing types and highlighting fundamental debates. We then

present a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, which depicts how cyclical

responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability—peak performance in the

present that enables success in the future. This review and the model provide the

foundation of a theory of paradox.

Organizing raises multiple tensions, such as

collaboration-control (Sundaramurthy & Lewis,

2003), individual-collective (Murnighan & Con-

lon, 1991), flexibility-efficiency (Adler, Goldoftas,

& Levine, 1999), exploration-exploitation (Smith

& Tushman, 2005), and profit-social responsibil-

ity (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). As environments

become more global, fast paced, and competi-

tive, and as internal organizational processes

become more complex, such contradictory de-

mands become increasingly salient and persis-

tent (Lewis, 2000). Leaders’ responses to these

tensions may be a fundamental determinant of

an organization’s fate (Quinn, 1988).

Contingency theory offers one response to ten-

sions. Assuming that organizational systems

are most effective when they achieve alignment

or fit among internal elements and with the ex-

ternal environment, this approach explores con-

ditions for selecting among competing de-

mands. Early contingency theory from the late

1960s (i.e., Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Woodward,

1965) inspired decades of research exploring

how contexts influence the effectiveness of op-

posing alternatives. For example, contingency

theory explores the conditions that drive choices

between exploratory and exploitative (i.e., Tush-

man & Romanelli, 1985), cooperative and com-

petitive (Deutsch, 1968), mechanistic and or-

ganic (Burns & Stalker, 1961), and centralized

and decentralized (Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003).

Paradox studies adopt an alternative ap-

proach to tensions, exploring how organizations

can attend to competing demands simultane-

ously. Although choosing among competing ten-

sions might aid short-term performance, a par-

adox perspective argues that long-term

sustainability requires continuous efforts to

meet multiple, divergent demands (Cameron,

1986; Lewis, 2000). Discussions of paradox from

the late 1980s (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Smith &

Berg, 1987) motivated research in such domains

as innovation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;

Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), change (Seo & Creed,

2002), communication and rhetoric (Jarzab-

kowski & Sillince, 2007; Putnam, 1986; Trethewey

& Ashcraft, 2004), identity (Fiol, 2002), and lead-

ership (Smith & Tushman, 2005).

As an alternative to contingency theory, the

paradox literature has become increasingly

crowded. Yet, even so, insights from a paradox

perspective are limited by fundamental debates

about the nature and management of paradoxi-

cal tensions. What is—and is not—a paradox?

We appreciate the provocative and engaging conversa-

tions with Jean Bartunek, Mike Beer, Kim Cameron, Jeffrey

Ford, Paula Jarzabkowski, Joshua Margolis, Robert Quinn,

Mike Tushman, and Andy Van de Ven that helped launch

this article. We thank Amy Ingram for her research assis-

tance and the participants of the 2010 European Group for

Organization Studies (EGOS) Subtrack on Paradox for their

feedback. Finally, we appreciate the valuable comments

and advice from guest editor Quy Huy and three anonymous

reviewers.

姝Academy of Management Review

2011, Vol. 36, No. 2, 381–403.

381

holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Are tensions that underlie paradox inherent in

organizational systems, or are they socially con-

structed? Can leaders and organizations resolve

tensions, or must they accept their persistence?

And, most critical to leaders, how do varied

management strategies for approaching para-

dox impact organizational outcomes?

Our goal is to sharpen the focus of a paradox

lens, thereby enabling scholars to more effec-

tively apply this perspective to organizational

tensions. To do so, we focus on two main objec-

tives. First, we review and synthesize a vast

array of existing paradox literature. We define

paradox as contradictory yet interrelated ele-

ments that exist simultaneously and persist

over time. This definition highlights two compo-

nents of paradox: (1) underlying tensions—that

is, elements that seem logical individually but

inconsistent and even absurd when juxta-

posed—and (2) responses that embrace tensions

simultaneously (Lewis, 2000).

Based on our re-

view of the literature, we propose an organizing

framework for categorizing paradoxical ten-

sions while identifying points of divergence

across varied studies. This first section of our

paper contributes a synthesis of the paradox

literature, highlighting its breadth and depth

and surfacing fundamental debates.

Our second objective is to integrate existing

literature and offer responses to these funda-

mental debates. We clarify the distinctions be-

tween our definition of paradox and similar con-

structs, such as dilemmas and dialectics. We

propose a dynamic equilibrium model of orga-

nizing, which suggests that tensions are inher-

ent and persistent and depicts how purposeful

and cyclical responses to paradox over time en-

able sustainability—peak performance in the

present that enables success in the future. This

section of our article contributes an integrative

model with explicit propositions that clarify un-

derlying assumptions, provide a platform for on-

going research, and propose a means for long-

term sustainability. Together, this review and

the model provide the foundations of a paradox

theory, which can offer clarity, provoke discus-

sion, and fuel further studies of organizational

paradox.

ORGANIZATIONAL PARADOX:

CATEGORIZATION AND DEBATES

To examine the paradox perspective, we sur-

veyed studies in the past twenty years across

twelve management journals.

We found that

scholars have increasingly adopted a paradox

perspective, with accumulating studies span-

ning organizational phenomena and levels of

analysis. Within our sample we found 360 arti-

cles focused on organizational paradox. The

number of these articles grew at an average rate

of 10 percent per year. In addition, several spe-

cial issues in journals beyond our sample at-

tended to organizational paradox (e.g., Journal

of Organizational Behavior, volume 28, issue 5;

Journal of Organizational Change Management,

volume 19, issue 4). Even as research adopting a

paradox perspective has expanded dramati-

cally, this review highlights the lack of concep-

tual and theoretical coherence. We synthesize

the literature through an organizing framework

that categorizes paradoxes while highlighting

key theoretical debates around definitions, as-

sumptions, and management strategies.

Organizational Paradoxes: Categorizing

Diverse Applications of a Paradox Perspective

We catalog paradoxes of belonging, learning,

organizing, and performing. This framework

builds from previous work—namely, Lewis’s

Reflecting the dominant use of paradox, we focus on

underlying tensions as dualities between two elements

(Ford & Backoff, 1988). Later in our discussion we explore

how these ideas might expand to relate to more complex

trialectics (Ford & Ford, 1994) or pluralistic tensions (Jar-

zabkowski & Sillince, 2007).

We focused on the years 1989–2008, which include the

twenty years following publication of Cameron and Quinn’s

influential book, Paradox and Transformation: Toward a

Theory of Change in Organization and Management, in 1988.

We surveyed four journals illustrative of U.S. scholarship

(Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Manage-

ment Review, Administrative Science Quarterly,Organiza-

tion Science), four indicative of European scholarship (Hu-

man Relations,Journal of International Business Studies,

Journal of Management Studies,Organization Studies), and

four providing a practitioner focus (Academy of Manage-

ment Executive,California Management Research,Harvard

Business Review,Long Range Planning). We identified all

articles that used the words paradox, contradiction, tension,

duality, polarity, and/or dialectic in their titles, abstracts, or

keywords. We analyzed the abstracts, examining full arti-

cles when unsure, to confirm that paradoxical tensions and

a both/and focus were central to the work.

382 AprilAcademy of Management Review

(2000) review, which applied the first three cat-

egories, and Luscher and Lewis’s (2008) induc-

tive action research, which identified the latter

three. Further, these categories mirror those

identified in the early paradox research, reflect-

ing Quinn’s (1988) competing values (learning-

adhocracy, belonging-clan, organizing-hier-

archy, performance-market).

We identify

exemplars that illustrate each category, as well

as tensions at their intersections (see Figure 1).

The four categories of paradox represent core

activities and elements of organizations: learn-

ing (knowledge), belonging (identity/interper-

sonal relationships), organizing (processes), and

performing (goals). Learning paradoxes surface

as dynamic systems change, renew, and inno-

vate. These efforts involve building upon, as

well as destroying, the past to create the future

(O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Such tensions reflect

the nature (Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Ghemawat

& Costa, 1993) and pace (Weick & Quinn, 1999) of

engaging new ideas, including tensions be-

tween radical and incremental innovation or ep-

isodic and continuous change.

Complexity and plurality drive belonging par-

adoxes, or tensions of identity. These tensions

arise between the individual and the collective,

as individuals (Brewer, 1991; Kreiner, Hollensbe,

& Sheep, 2006) and groups (Smith & Berg, 1987)

seek both homogeneity and distinction. At the

firm level, opposing yet coexisting roles, mem-

berships, and values highlight tensions of be-

longing (Badaracco, 1998; Huy, 2002; Markus &

Kitayama, 1991; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Golden-

Biddle and Rao (1997), for instance, found that

competing identities emerge among not-for-

profit board members, creating conflict and am-

biguity regarding strategic action.

Organizing paradoxes surface as complex

systems create competing designs and pro-

We thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting the

similarities of this categorization to Quinn’s (1988) frame-

work.

FIGURE 1

Categorization of Organizational Tensions

Belonging

Identity fosters tensions between the

individual and the collective and between

competing values, roles, and memberships

(e.g., Badaracco, 1998; Brewer, 1991; Huy, 2002;

Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Pratt & Foreman, 2000)

Organizing

Structuring and leading foster collaboration

and competition, empowerment and

direction, and control and ﬂexibility

(e.g., Adler, Gol do ftas, & Levine, 1999; Denison,

Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Flynn & Chatman, 2001;

Ghemawat & Costa, 1993; Luscher & Lewis, 2008;

Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003)

Performing

Plurality fosters multiple and competing

goal as stakeholders seek divergent

organizational success

(e.g., Denis, Langley, & Rouleau, 2007;

Donaldson

& Preston, 1995; Jarzabkowski &

Sillince, 2007; Margolis & Walsh, 2003)

Learning

Efforts to adjust, renew, change, and innovate

foster tensions between building upon and

destroying the past to create the future

(e.g., March, 1991; Senge, 1990; Weick &

Quinn, 1999)

Learning::Belonging

Conﬂicts between the need for

adaptation and change and the

desire to retain an ordered sense of

self and purpose

(e.g., Fiol, 2002; Ibarra, 1999; O'Mahony

& Bechky, 2006)

Performing::Organizing

Interplay between means and ends,

employee vs. customer demands, high

commitment vs. high performance

Belonging::Organizing

Tensions between the individual and

the aggregate, individuality vs.

collective action

(e.g., Murnighan

& Conlon, 1991;

Smith & Berg,

1987)

(e.g., Andriopoulos &

Lewis, 2009; Dweck, 2006;

Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996)

Building capabilities for the future

while ensuring success in the present

Learning::Performing

Learning::Organizing

Organizational routines and

capabilities seek stability, clarity,

focus, and efﬁciency while also

enabling dynamic, ﬂexible, and agile

outcomes

(e.g., Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece

& Pisano, 1994)

Performing::Belonging

Clash between identiﬁcation and

goals as actors negotiate individual

identities with social and

occupational demands

(e.g., Dukerich, Golden, &

Shortell, 2002;

Kreiner, Hollensbe, &

Sheep, 2006)

(e.g., Eisenstat, Beer, Foote, Fredberg,

& Norrgren, 2008; Gittell, 2004; Kaplan

& Norton, 1996)

2011 383Smith and Lewis

cesses to achieve a desired outcome. These

include tensions between collaboration and

competition (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), em-

powerment and direction (Denison, Hooijberg, &

Quinn, 1995), or routine and change (Flynn &

Chatman, 2001; Gittell, 2004). For example, man-

ufacturing depends on systems that can enable

control and flexibility (Adler et al., 1999; Osono,

Shimizu, & Takeuchi, 2008).

Performing paradoxes stem from the plurality

of stakeholders and result in competing strate-

gies and goals. Tensions surface between the

differing, and often conflicting, demands of

varied internal and external stakeholders

(Donaldson & Preston, 1995). As an illustration,

corporate social responsibility highlights a

double bottom line, in which performance de-

pends on financial and social goals (Margolis

& Walsh, 2003).

Tensions operate between as well as within

these categories. Learning and performing spur

tensions between building capabilities for the

future while ensuring success in the present

(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Tushman &

O’Reilly, 1996; Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).

Related studies examine the inconsistent mind-

sets (Dweck, 2006) and norms (Ghoshal & Bart-

lett, 1994; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) that sup-

port these contradictory efforts. Tensions

between learning and belonging reflect con-

flicts between the need for change and the de-

sire to retain a developed sense of self and pur-

pose. Organizational identities often become

enablers and obstacles to development and

change (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Zilber, 2002).

Individuals face this tension as they assume

new roles (Ibarra, 1999; O’Mahony & Bechky,

2006), while firms embody such contradictions

as they mature from entrepreneurial to more

established stages (Fiol, 2002). Organizing and

learning tensions surface in organizational ca-

pabilities that seek focus and efficiency while

also enabling change and agility. The demand

for dynamic capabilities creates tensions in

seeking to continuously renew and alter stable

routines (Teece & Pisano, 1994). For example,

Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) argued that for ca-

pabilities to be truly dynamic, the routines

themselves must be flexible and versatile.

Tensions between organizing and performing

can be summarized by the interplay between

means and ends or process and outcome, appar-

ent in conflicts between meeting employee and

customer demands (Gittell, 2004) and between

seeking high commitment and high perfor-

mance (Eisenstat, Beer, Foote, Fredberg, & Norr-

gren, 2008). Belonging and performing tensions

emerge when identification and goals clash, of-

ten apparent in efforts to negotiate unique indi-

vidual identities with social or occupational de-

mands (e.g., Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002).

Kreiner and colleagues (2006) noted this tension

as priests grappled with maintaining their

sense of self while fulfilling their professional

roles. Finally, belonging and organizing efforts

intersect via tensions between the individual

and the aggregate. Organizing involves collec-

tive action and the subjugation of the individual

for the benefit of the whole. Yet organizing is

most successful when individuals identify with

the whole and contribute their most distinctive

personal strengths (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991;

Smith & Berg, 1987).

These reviewed studies highlight the richness

and scope of a paradox perspective. Conflicting

yet interrelated elements have been identified

across a range of organizational phenomena

and across differing levels of analysis. Exem-

plars articulate tensions at the level of the indi-

vidual (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), dyad (Argyris,

1988), group (Smith & Berg, 1987), project (van

Marrewijk, Clegg, Pitsis, & Veenswijk, 2008), and

organization (Cameron & Quinn, 1988). More-

over, the same tensions can exist across each of

these levels. For example, tensions between

learning and performance surface at the level of

the individual (Dweck, 2006), group (Van Der

Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), top management team

(Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003), and firm (Ghoshal

& Bartlett, 1994). Furthermore, paradoxical ten-

sions may be nested, cascading across levels,

as the experience at one level creates new chal-

lenges at another. For example, organizational

efforts to explore and exploit create tensions

that are experienced by individual leaders and

senior teams (Smith & Tushman, 2005), middle

managers (Huy, 2002), and individual employees

(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). In their compara-

tive case studies, Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009)

identified nested innovation tensions of strate-

gic intent (profit-breakthroughs), of each proj-

ect’s customer orientation (tight-loose coupling),

and of designers’ own personal drivers (disci-

pline-passion).

384 AprilAcademy of Management Review

Remaining Gaps: Debates in

Paradox Research

Our review highlights exemplars that can

guide future research, but it also suggests gaps

that thwart a more cohesive understanding of

paradox and a more unified paradox commu-

nity. To be more specific, debates swirl around

the conceptualization of paradox, the ontologi-

cal nature of paradoxical tensions, and strate-

gies to respond to these tensions.

The lack of conceptual clarity in this field is

evident in the varying language adopted to de-

scribe tensions, including “paradox,” “di-

lemma,” dichotomy,” and “dialectic.” Moreover,

a number of organizational fields refer to simul-

taneously attending to contradictory tensions

without using the term paradox. Ambidexterity

scholars, for instance, explore underlying ten-

sions associated with innovation (Andriopoulos

& Lewis, 2009) and call for firms and their lead-

ers to engage in exploration and exploitation

simultaneously (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Or-

ganizational identity scholars propose that hy-

brid identity organizations embed multiple, in-

consistent identity types (Albert & Whetten,

1985), and they explore strategies for attending

to competing identities simultaneously (Fiol,

Pratt, & O’Connor, 2009; Pratt & Foreman, 2000).

Institutional theorists recognize that organiza-

tions embed multiple institutional logics, and

they explore responses to competing logics si-

multaneously (Kraatz & Block, 2008). At a more

micro level, work-family researchers explore the

integration and interaction of competing de-

mands (Ilies, Wilson, & Wagner, 2009; Rothbard,

2001). Greater conceptual clarity could enable

more fruitful and provocative discussion across

paradox contexts.

A second challenge in the literature stems

from an ontological debate that differentiates

paradoxical tensions either as an inherent fea-

ture of a system or as social constructions that

emerge from actors’ cognition and rhetoric.

Clegg (2002) described the divergence between

views of paradoxes as material—inherent in the

external world— or representations—social con-

structions of our lived experiences (Ashcraft,

Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009). Material tensions are un-

derstood to be embedded in complex human

systems, such as firms and their varied sub-

groups (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Smith & Berg,

1987). These systems are inherently paradoxical

since they are defined by boundaries between

self and other, individuality and collaboration,

and ingroup and outgroup. In contrast, a social

construction view presumes that individuals sit-

uate tensions within a particular time or space

(Poole & Van de Ven, 1989) or create them

through cognitive frames or dialogical mixed

messages (Argyris, 1988; Putnam, 1986). In their

qualitative study, El-Sawad, Arnold, and Cohen

(2004) examined how actors construct paradoxi-

cal tensions, such as one’s opposing yet inter-

connected roles as a loyal manager and a grass-

roots employee, and then use rhetoric to reduce

their awareness of doing so. They called such

avoidance “doublethink.” This ontological dis-

parity fractures the literature and has implica-

tions for strategies to manage paradox through

acceptance or resolution, another debate.

Advocated responses to paradox diverge be-

tween acceptance and resolution strategies.

Poole and Van de Ven (1989) identified four stra-

tegic responses: (1) acceptance, keeping ten-

sions separate and appreciating their differ-

ences; (2) spatial separation, allocating

opposing forces across different organizational

units; (3) temporal separation, choosing one pole

of a tension at one point in time and then switch-

ing; and (4) synthesis, seeking a view that ac-

commodates the opposing poles. In this fre-

quently used typology, the first strategy focuses

on acceptance, whereas the last three seek to

resolve the underlying tensions.

Acceptance encourages actors to embrace or

“live with” paradox (Clegg, Cuhna, & Cuhna,

2002; Lewis, 2000). Living with paradox implies

that actors shift their expectations for rationality

and linearity to accept paradoxes as persistent

and unsolvable puzzles. Such strategies may be

passive or proactive. Murnighan and Conlon

(1991), for instance, found that high-performing

string quarters “play through” rather than con-

front tensions, thereby avoiding potentially di-

sastrous conflicts. Others, however, stress that

acceptance is a powerful, proactive strategy, re-

ducing defensiveness to unleash enhanced per-

formance (Cameron, 1986). Emotions and cogni-

tion play key roles in such strategies, which call

for actors to engage anxiety and thereby face

challenges surfaced by tensions (Luscher &

Lewis, 2008; Vince & Broussine, 1996). According

to Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh, and

MacLean (2004), acceptance entails opening ten-

2011 385Smith and Lewis

sions to discussion to foster more creative con-

siderations.

In contrast, other strategies seek resolution. In

this case resolution does not imply eliminating

a tension but, rather, finding a means of meet-

ing competing demands or considering diver-

gent ideas simultaneously. While Poole and Van

de Ven (1989) suggest spatial separation, tempo-

ral separation, and synthesis, others explore

cognitive shifts that reframe the relationship be-

tween polarized elements (Bartunek, 1988), clar-

ifying mixed messages that invoke contradic-

tion (Argyris, 1988), or metacommunicating

about tensions to identify both/and possibilities

(Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004). It is with these

debates in mind that we propose an integrative

model.

DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM: AN

INTEGRATIVE MODEL

We respond to debates about the nature of

and managerial responses to paradoxical ten-

sions by building a model that (1) seeks concep-

tual clarity, (2) describes both the inherent and

socially constructed features of organizational

tensions, and (3) integrates management strate-

gies of acceptance and resolution. While exist-

ing studies address a specific paradox or iden-

tify particular elements of paradox, we integrate

shared understandings into a more holistic the-

oretical model. The metaphor of dynamic equi-

librium highlights the model’s key features—the

persistence of conflicting forces and purposeful,

cyclical responses over time that enable sus-

tainability. Static equilibrium denotes a system

at steady state, when all components are at rest.

When episodic action creates an imbalance, the

system responds to regain equilibrium. Dy-

namic equilibrium, in contrast, assumes con-

stant motion across opposing forces. The system

maintains equilibrium by adapting to a contin-

uous pull in opposing directions. In biological

terms, cells achieve a dynamic equilibrium

state of homeostasis when molecules flow in

and out of the cell at an equal rate. In thermo-

dynamics a dynamic equilibrium involves si-

multaneous and vigorous forward and back-

ward reactions. In a dynamic organizational

system the role of leadership is to support op-

posing forces and harness the constant tension

between them, enabling the system to not only

survive but continuously improve (Nonaka &

Toyama, 2002; Teece & Pisano, 1994; Weick &

Quinn, 1999).

Conceptual Clarity: Distinguishing Among

Organizational Tensions

Building the foundation of an integrative

model requires conceptual clarity. To identify

key elements of paradox, we describe similari-

ties and differences between paradoxical ten-

sions and those labeled as dilemmas or dialec-

tics. Figure 2 illustrates these similarities and

distinctions.

Leveraging existing literature, we define par-

adox as contradictory yet interrelated elements

that exist simultaneously and persist over time.

Such elements seem logical when considered in

isolation but irrational, inconsistent, and even

absurd when juxtaposed (see Lewis, 2000). The

distinguishing characteristics of paradox are il-

lustrated by the Taoist symbol of yin yang. First,

paradox denotes elements, or dualities, that are

oppositional to one another yet are also syner-

gistic and interrelated within a larger system

(Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Voorhees, 1986). These

dualities are reflected as A and B in Figure 2.

Boundaries separating these elements highlight

their distinctions, reinforced by formal logic that

encourages either/or thinking and accentuates

differences. The external boundary integrates

the overall system and highlights synergies. Yet

this external boundary also binds and juxta-

poses opposing elements and amplifies their

paradoxical nature, creating a dynamic rela-

tionship between dualities and ensuring their

persistence over time.

Distinguishing paradoxes from similar orga-

nizational tensions, such as dilemmas and dia-

lectics, highlights the core characteristics of

paradox. A dilemma denotes a tension such that

each competing alternative poses clear advan-

tages and disadvantages (McGrath, 1982). Re-

solving the dilemma involves weighing pros

and cons. For example, a classic “make versus

buy” decision may pose a dilemma when both

options have upsides and downsides. In con-

trast, a dialectic denotes an ongoing process of

resolving tensions through integration. In this

case A and B are contradictory (thesis and an-

tithesis) and resolvable through their merger

into a combined element (synthesis). Yet a new

tension eventually surfaces as the resulting syn-

thesis becomes a new thesis, C, and eventually

386 AprilAcademy of Management Review

spurs an antithesis, D (Bledow, Frese, Anderson,

Erez, & Farr, 2009; Nonaka & Toyama, 2002).

Conceptual confusion, however, emerges as

dilemmas, dialectics, and paradoxes overlap. A

dilemma may prove paradoxical, for instance,

when a longer time horizon shows how any

choice between A and B is temporary. Over time

the contradictions resurface, suggesting their

interrelatedness and persistence. As Cameron

and Quinn (1988) warned, too often actors im-

pose an either/or choice to treat tensions as di-

lemmas that could more fruitfully be ap-

proached from a both/and perspective. In their

action research Luscher and Lewis (2008) found

that pushing managers to explore dilemmas of-

ten surfaced their paradoxical nature. The more

managers stressed the positive of one side, the

more this accentuated the opposite. For exam-

ple, in the tension between delegation and con-

trol, the more managers discussed the value of

delegation to empower employees, the more this

highlighted the need for control to ensure effi-

cient execution.

Similarly, dialectics prove paradoxical when

the contradictory and interrelated relationship

between thesis and antithesis persists over

time. Synthesis stresses the similarities be-

tween elements. But by neglecting valued differ-

ences, this integration is short-lived. The need

for their disparate qualities remains such that

any synthesis gradually favors one element

over the other (i.e., C and D retain core features

of A and B, respectively). Clegg proposed that

paradoxes and dialectics become synonymous

when “a thesis does not exist despite its anti-

thesis, but because of it. Each pole of the dialec-

tic needs the other to sustain its presence” (2002:

29). In their action research Beech et al. (2004)

offered an example in the health care industry, a

field pulled in opposing directions by demands

FIGURE 2

Distinguishing Among Organizational Tensions

Paradox

Contradictory yet interrelated elements (dualities) that exist simultaneously and

persist over time; such elements seem logical when considered in isolation, but

irrational, inconsistent, and absurd when juxtaposed

Dilemma

Competing choices, each with advantages and disadvantages

Paradoxical when options are contradictory and interrelated such that

any choice between them is temporary and tension will resurface

Dialectic

Contradictory elements (thesis and antithesis) resolved through integration

(synthesis), which, over time, will confront new opposition

Paradoxical when elements are both contradictory and interrelated.

Because synthesis stresses their similarities, neglecting valued differences,

integration is temporary. Need for disparate qualities persists such that

synthesis gradually favors one over the other (i.e., C and D retain core

characteristics of A and B, respectively)

Dualities (A and B) — Opposites that exist within a uniﬁed whole

•

internal boundary creates distinction and highlights opposition

•

external boundary encourages synergies by constructing the uniﬁed whole

2011 387Smith and Lewis

for medical and managerial skills. In their study

a synthesis emerged through the educational

merger of medical and business degrees. Yet the

fundamental duality persisted. Such hybrid pro-

fessionals gradually became focused on their

medical peers and roles, eventually intensifying

the need for greater business acumen.

The well-studied tension between exploration

and exploitation illustrates the nature of para-

dox and its contrast with dilemmas and dialec-

tics. As March (1991) first articulated, exploring

and exploiting pose conflicting strategies be-

tween search and refinement, risk taking and

efficiency, and variation and choice. These strat-

egies are associated with inconsistent manage-

rial cognitions (Gavetti & Levinthal, 2000; Gilbert,

2006), organizational contexts (Flynn & Chatman,

2001; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994; Gibson & Birkin-

shaw, 2004), managerial skills (Virany & Tushman,

1986), and rates of learning (Miller, Zhao, & Calan-

tone, 2006; Taylor & Greve, 2006), and they compete

for organizational resources (Gupta, Smith, &

Shalley, 2006).

Initially, researchers and managers treated

this challenge as a dilemma, seeking to identify

contingencies that separate exploration and ex-

ploitation temporally or spatially. For example,

in their punctuated equilibrium model Tushman

and Romanelli (1985) assume that stability and

flexibility occur during different time periods

and that leadership should enable shifts over

time. Alternative approaches suggest exploring

and exploiting in different structures, where es-

tablished firms continue to host exploitation ac-

tivities and allocate exploration to internal cor-

porate ventures (Burgelman, 2002) or spin-off

entities (Rosenbloom & Christensen, 1994). Oth-

ers treat exploration and exploitation as a dia-

lectic, seeking to identify the synergies that

emerge when new ideas, skills, and strategies

are integrated along with the old (Bledow et al.,

2009; Farjoun, 2010).

In contrast, recent ambidexterity research has

adopted a paradox lens, stressing that overall

organizational success depends on exploring

and exploiting simultaneously (Gibson & Birkin-

shaw, 2004; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Raisch &

Birkinshaw, 2008). Even as these strategies com-

pete for resources in the short term, they are

mutually reinforcing to enable long-term suc-

cess (He & Wong, 2004). Exploration and exploi-

tation reinforce one another through their inter-

woven support of organizational learning

(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). Without explora-

tion, there is no organizational knowledge to

exploit. Likewise, without exploitation, firms

lack the foundational knowledge that enables

absorptive capacity and fuels experimentation.

Ambidexterity creates demands for senior lead-

ership to support these contradictory strategies

simultaneously (Smith & Tushman, 2005).

Paradoxical Tensions: Latent and Salient

Building from this conceptual base, we de-

velop a dynamic equilibrium model, shown in

Figure 3, that has three primary features: (1)

paradoxical tensions that are both latent and

salient, (2) responses to tensions that entail iter-

ating among management strategies, and (3) the

outcome or impact of management strategies on

sustainability.

Researchers have explored paradoxical ten-

sions as either inherent— existing within the

system— or socially constructed— created by ac-

tors’ cognition or rhetoric. We propose that they

are both. That is, opposing yet interrelated du-

alities are embedded in the process of organiz-

ing and are brought into juxtaposition via envi-

ronmental conditions. In this way we focus on

forces that render latent tensions salient to or-

ganizational actors.

Organizations emerge as leaders respond to

foundational questions, constructing boundar-

ies that foster distinctions and dichotomies

(Ford & Backoff, 1988). In creating organizations,

leaders must decide what they are going to do,

how they are going to do it, who is going to do it,

and in what time horizon. By defining what they

are trying to do, the leaders define what they are

not trying to do, highlighting goals and strate-

gies and creating performing tensions, such as

global versus local and socially focused versus

financially focused. By defining how they are

going to operate, they define how they are not

going to operate. Doing so creates organizing

tensions, such as loosely coupled versus tightly

coupled, centralized versus decentralized, and

flexible versus controlling. Responding to ques-

tions about who is going to do what highlights

conflicting identities, roles, and values, creating

belonging tensions. Finally, as leaders consider

the time horizon for their actions, they face

learning tensions between today and tomorrow

or between looking forward and looking back-

ward. Tensions forged through the act of orga-

388 AprilAcademy of Management Review

nizing are not merely distinct from one another

but are also oppositional and relational (Seo et

al., 2004). By defining A we create a broad cate-

gory of not A. The result is a system of interre-

lated tensions. Clegg and colleagues explained

this emergence, noting that “most management

practices create their own nemesis” (2002: 491).

While actors construct organizations, doing so

inherently surfaces material paradoxical ten-

sions.

Tensions emanating through acts of organiz-

ing persist because of the complex and adaptive

nature of organizational systems. Systems are

complex in that they consist of discrete, hierar-

chically arranged subsystems, spurring spatial

tensions between subsystems or between sub-

systems and the overall system (Cyert & March,

1963). While each subsystem can operate inde-

pendently, success of the overall system de-

pends on their interdependence (Katz & Kahn,

1966; Simon, 1962; Thompson, 1967). Organiza-

tional subsystems, for example, can encompass

varied functional domains, each involving dis-

tinct practices, cultures, identities, and demo-

graphics. R&D engineers might find themselves

out of place if dressed in a suit and given sales

targets, just as members of a sales force might

feel as though they have walked into a science

fiction movie if placed in a lab.

Finally, complex systems not only invoke var-

ied goals from internal stakeholders but also

must address diverse demands posed by exter-

nal stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995;

Freeman, 1984). Achieving success requires at-

tention to the often conflicting needs of share-

holders, customers, employees, communities,

and suppliers. Moreover, the adaptive nature of

systems spurs temporal tensions associated

with paradoxes of learning and organizing as

the demands of today differ from the needs for

tomorrow. In response to external and internal

stimuli, systems are constantly shifting, learn-

ing, and changing (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997;

Tushman & Romanelli, 1985).

FIGURE 3

A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing

Sustainability

Short-term peak

performance that fuels

long-term success

Paradoxical

tensions

(P3)

Latent tensions

Contradictory yet interrelated

elements embedded in organizing

processes that persist because of

organizational complexity and

adaptation

Acceptance

Embracing paradoxical tensions via

strategy of “working through”

Paradoxical resolution

Confronting

paradoxical tensions via

iterating responses of splitting and

integration

Choose A

Accommodate A-B

Choose B

Management

strategies

Factors spurring virtuous cycles

(P2a)

Individual factors

•

cognitive and behavioral complexity

•

emotional equanimity

(P2b)

Organizational dynamic capabilities

Factors rendering tensions salient

(P1a) Environmental factors

•

plurality

•

change

•

scarcity

(P1b)

Actors’ paradoxical

cognition

Outcomes

Factors spurring vicious cycles

•

Individual factors

•

cognitive and behavioral drive for

consistency

•

emotional anxiety and defensiveness

•

Organizational forces for inertia

Salient tensions

Contradictory yet interrelated

elements experienced by

organizational actors

2011 389Smith and Lewis

Even as tensions persist in organizational sys-

tems, they may remain latent— dormant, unper-

ceived, or ignored— until environmental factors

or cognitive efforts accentuate the oppositional

and relational nature of dualities. Latent ten-

sions then become salient—the contradictory

and inconsistent nature of the tensions becomes

experienced by organizational actors. We pro-

pose that environmental factors—namely, plu-

rality, change, and scarcity—render latent ten-

sions salient.

Plurality denotes a multiplicity of views in

contexts of diffuse power (Denis, Langley, &

Rouleau, 2007). Plurality expands uncertainty

and surfaces competing goals and inconsistent

processes (Cohen & March, 1974). Likewise,

change spurs new opportunities for sensemak-

ing as actors grapple with conflicting short- and

long-term needs (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Lu-

scher & Lewis, 2008) and with competing yet

coexisting roles and emotions (Huy, 2002). Last,

scarcity involves resource limitations, whether

temporal, financial, or human resources. As

leaders make choices about how to allocate re-

sources, this exacerbates tensions between op-

posing and interdependent alternatives (Smith

& Tushman, 2005). Taken together, plurality,

change, and scarcity challenge our bounded ra-

tionality and stress systems. As a result, indi-

viduals are more prone to break apart interwo-

ven elements into either/or decisions, practices,

and understanding, blurring their interrelated-

ness.

Studies of paradox frequently note the in-

creasing intersection of these environmental

forces. According to Clegg and colleagues

(2002), today’s business climate is defined by

intricate dynamics that heighten awareness of

tensions. Plurality, change, and scarcity con-

verge in settings of rising globalization (Bra-

dach, 1997), technological innovation (Iansiti,

1995), and hypercompetition (D’Aveni & Mac-

Millan, 1990), demanding that leaders be more

flexible (Teece et al., 1997) while also addressing

an array of stakeholder pressures (Donaldson &

Preston, 1995). Awareness of divergent organiza-

tional purposes is intensified when firms oper-

ate across national borders, elevating the im-

portance of managing social as well as

economic issues. Moreover, population explo-

sion and urban expansion raise questions about

the relationship between businesses and the

natural environment (Hoffman & Woody, 2008).

Thus, leaders must consider demands of stake-

holders beyond their shareholders (Margolis &

Walsh, 2003).

For example, Dutton and Dukerich (1991) de-

picted tensions between the Port Authority’s or-

ganizational identity as a professional organi-

zation with high-quality transportation service

and its identity as an altruistic organization

with high commitment to the welfare of the re-

gion. These tensions became salient when the

issue of homelessness created scarcity of re-

sources, demanded attention to multiple stake-

holders (customers, employees, community

members, and the homeless), and involved or-

ganizational change. Exploration-exploitation

tensions offer another example. Increased com-

petitive pressures encourage firms to expand

both their exploitative and exploratory efforts

(Auh & Menguc, 2005). Change further accentu-

ates demands for the flexibility, experimenta-

tion, and risk enabled by exploration, even

while continuing to exploit for enhanced effi-

ciency (Volberda & Lewin, 2003). These tensions

are further pronounced in complex settings in

which new technologies do not immediately dis-

place existing ones (Gilbert, 2005). For instance,

even as the personal computer eventually can-

nibalized the mainframe, mainframe revenue

continued to grow for over twenty years. Such a

setting demands exploiting existing technology,

even as firms race to explore new possibilities.

Proposition 1a: Latent paradoxical

tensions become salient to organiza-

tional actors under environmental

conditions of plurality, change, and

scarcity.

In addition to external environmental forces,

actors’ cognition and subsequent rhetoric can

also highlight boundaries that draw attention to

underlying tensions (Ashcraft et al., 2009). Para-

doxical cognition—frames and processes that

recognize and juxtapose contradictory de-

mands—make latent tensions more explicit

(Smith & Tushman, 2005). These cognitive

frames may be spurred by cultural and contex-

tual variables. Keller and Loewenstein (2010), for

example, found that Chinese students are more

willing to simultaneously engage in both coop-

erating and competing processes than are

American students.

390 AprilAcademy of Management Review

Proposition 1b: Latent paradoxical

tensions become salient as actors ap-

ply paradoxical cognition.

Managing Tensions: Enabling Vicious and

Virtuous Cycles

Roots of vicious cycles. Once rendered salient,

paradoxical tensions spur responses. According

to paradox studies, responses fuel reinforcing

cycles that can be negative or positive (Lewis,

2000). Negative, vicious cycles, depicted in Fig-

ure 3 with the dotted, downward arrow, stem

from such factors as cognitive and behavioral

forces for consistency, emotional anxiety and

defensiveness, and organizational forces for in-

ertia. Individuals demonstrate a strong prefer-

ence for consistency in their attitudes and be-

liefs (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom, 1995; Heider,

1958) and between their cognition and their ac-

tions (Festinger, 1957), as well as an emotional

anxiety in the face of contradiction (Schneider,

1990). When facing contradiction, they often em-

ploy defense mechanisms, such as denial, re-

pression (Vince & Broussine, 1996), and even hu-

mor (Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993), to avoid the

inconsistencies. For example, actors may feel

paralysis as tensions spur confusion and rein-

force inaction (Smith & Berg, 1987).

Individuals may also react by choosing one

agenda, altering their beliefs or actions to en-

able a consistent response (Cialdini et al., 1995)

or maintaining an often mindless commitment

to previous behaviors in order to enable consis-

tency between the past and the future (Weick,

1993). Such commitments become reinforced by

organizational dynamics that embed inertia in

structures (Henderson & Clark, 1990), routines

(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000), processes (Gilbert,

2005), and capabilities (Leonard-Barton, 1992),

where the future becomes beholden to the past.

Together, these individual and organizational

forces for consistency fuel a reinforcing cycle by

becoming increasingly focused on a single

choice.

Sundaramurthy and Lewis (2003) reviewed

such dynamics, using collaboration-control ten-

sions in governance for illustration. Boards that

overemphasize collaboration fuel groupthink, as

threat rigidity and escalating commitment fos-

ter even greater collaboration in a vicious spi-

ral. Overemphasizing control signals distrust

and drives defensiveness and turf wars that re-

sult in greater reliance on controls. While a sin-

gle-focused and well-aligned goal can drive

short-term success, it can also have unintended

consequences, including missing alternative

perspectives (Barron & Harackiewicz, 1999) and

promoting unethical behaviors (Schweitzer,

Lisa, & Douma, 2004). Firms such as Polaroid and

Firestone maintained commitments to their ex-

isting strategies, which detrimentally prevented

them from engaging in future options (Sull, 1999;

Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). Likewise, the Enron,

WorldCom, and Tyco cases reflect a pathology

of stressing profits without attending to process,

ends without considering means, and perfor-

mance without embracing ethics (Trevin˜o &

Brown, 2004).

Enabling virtuous cycles through acceptance

and resolution strategies. The dynamic equilib-

rium model explicates a more positive response

to paradoxical tensions. It depicts a virtuous

cycle, with awareness of tensions triggering a

management strategy of acceptance rather than

defensiveness. Acceptance entails viewing ten-

sions as an invitation for creativity and oppor-

tunity (Beech et al., 2004). Smith and Berg note

that “by immersing oneself in the opposing

forces, it becomes possible to discover the link

between them, the framework that gives mean-

ing to the apparent contradictions in the expe-

rience” (1987: 215) In their action research Lu-

scher and Lewis (2008) show that helping

managers accept tensions as paradoxical en-

abled their sensemaking. Initially managers ex-

perienced tensions as a dilemma. However, by

recognizing that they could never choose be-

tween competing tensions, because either op-

tion intensified needs for its opposite, they be-

gan to adopt paradoxical thinking and opened

discussions to consider both/and possibilities.

In contrast to factors that lead to defensive-

ness, we propose that attending to competing

demands simultaneously requires cognitive and

behavioral complexity, emotional equanimity,

and dynamic organizational capabilities. At the

individual level, cognitive complexity reflects

an ability to recognize and accept the interre-

lated relationship of underlying tensions. It en-

ables actors to host paradoxical cognitions—the

cognitive frames that accept contradictions

(Smith & Tushman, 2005). By seeking valued dif-

ferences between competing forces (Langer,

1989), while also identifying potential synergies

(Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992), actors are

2011 391Smith and Lewis

more likely to accept paradox. Similarly, Deni-

son and colleagues (1995) proposed that behav-

ioral complexity, a facility to adopt competing

behaviors, enables acceptance of paradoxical

tensions.

Emotional equanimity, an emotional calm and

evenness, further fosters paradoxical responses

by reducing anxiety and fear spurred by incon-

sistencies (Huy, 1999). Social psychologists have

long investigated how emotions influence be-

havior, either by providing cognitive informa-

tion to impact decision making (Forgas &

George, 2001; Maitlis & Ozcelik, 2004) or by di-

rectly spurring behavior (Fredrickson, 2001).

Tensions can elicit strong emotions. Competing

demands highlight ambiguity, uncertainty, and

equivocality that provoke anxiety (Lewis, 2000;

Vince & Broussine, 1996). Freudian psychology

suggests that contradictory and ambiguous in-

formation is ego threatening, provoking defen-

siveness (Schneider, 1990). Vince and Broussine

(1996) and Smith and Berg (1987) cataloged de-

fensive responses, including repression, denial,

and splitting, often used to avoid an underlying

tension. Emotional equanimity minimizes the in-

tense emotional defensiveness and fear and, in

doing so, fosters comfort and openness to con-

tradictions that can minimize counterproductive

defensiveness and vicious cycles (Sundaramur-

thy & Lewis, 2003).

Proposition 2a: Actors with cognitive

and behavioral complexity and emo-

tional equanimity are more likely to

accept paradoxical tensions rather

than respond defensively.

While cognitive and behavioral complexity

and emotional equanimity foster more openness

to paradox at the individual level, dynamic ca-

pabilities can do so at the organizational level.

Dynamic capabilities refer to the processes, rou-

tines, and skills that enable firm leaders to re-

spond effectively to constantly shifting environ-

ments (Teece et al., 1997). As such, dynamic

capabilities allow leaders to seek and integrate

new information through distinct structures

(Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), cultures (Gibson &

Birkinshaw, 2004), learning processes (Cohen &

Levinthal, 1990; Zollo & Winter, 2002), and man-

agerial capabilities (Adner & Helfat, 2002; Smith

& Tushman, 2005). Dynamic capabilities provide

collective tools to enable organizational leaders

to respond to environmental shifts and, in doing

so, enable members to be more open and accept-

ing of the dynamic environment of paradoxical

tensions.

Proposition 2b: Organizations with dy-

namic capabilities will foster greater

acceptance of paradoxical tensions

rather than encourage defensiveness.

The dynamic equilibrium model proposes a

managerial approach to paradox involving com-

plementary and interwoven strategies of accep-

tance and resolution. Acceptance lays the vital

groundwork for virtuous cycles. When actors as-

sume that tensions can and should coexist (Peng

& Nisbett, 1999; Rothenberg, 1979), they can

mindfully explore the dynamic relationship be-

tween tensions (Langer, 1989). Specifically,

viewing decisions as situated in the long term

may reduce conflict over scarce resources be-

cause managers recognize that any choice is

temporary, likely to change in the future be-

cause both dualities are vital to propagate long-

run success. Acceptance can further involve

viewing resources as abundant rather than

scarce. Those with an abundance orientation

assume that resources are adequate (Peach &

Dugger, 2006) and that people attend to re-

sources by seeking affirmative possibilities and

endless potential (Cameron & Lavine, 2006).

Acceptance provides a comfort with tensions

that enables more complex and challenging res-

olution strategies. Resolution involves seeking

responses to paradoxical tensions, either

through splitting and choosing between ten-

sions or by finding synergies that accommodate

opposing poles. Studies of tensions predomi-

nantly highlight one of these options, identify-

ing cases of splitting (Tushman & Romanelli,

1985) or synergistic integration (i.e., Bledow et

al., 2009; Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007). Yet

Poole and Van de Ven (1989) presented these

strategies as ideal types, which can be used

together. A dynamic equilibrium model pro-

poses such a combination; paradoxical resolu-

tion denotes purposeful iterations between al-

ternatives in order to ensure simultaneous

attention to them over time. Doing so involves

consistent inconsistency as managers fre-

quently and dynamically shift decisions. Actors

therefore make choices in the short term while

remaining acutely aware of accepting contra-

diction in the long term.

392 AprilAcademy of Management Review

For example, as individuals consider allocat-

ing time between work and family, their choice

may shift from attending to intense work com-

mitments at one point to focusing on family de-

mands to identifying means of linking work and

family. These short-term allocations of time al-

low for long-term engagement with both oppos-

ing forces. Similarly, firms with strategic com-

mitments to the financial bottom line and to a

broader social mission may alternate between

focusing subunits on different purposes and

seeking synergistic opportunities that further

both purposes.

A dynamic strategy may not only reflect in-

consistent choices over time but inconsistencies

within the same time period. For example,

Smith, Binns, and Tushman (2010) found that

more effectively attending to both exploration

and exploitation simultaneously involved dy-

namic decision making in which senior leaders

allocated additional resources to both the exist-

ing product and the innovation at the same time.

Some paradox studies depict such purposeful

iterations. Denis, Lamothe, and Langley (2001)

noted that managing change surfaces leader-

ship tensions between forceful action and ap-

proval seeking. They proposed that leaders

more effectively manage change when they

shift between these different poles and periodi-

cally seek an integrative means of restructuring

the relationship among a group of leaders. Like-

wise, Fiol and colleagues (2009) described a

model of responding to conflicting identities as

an iterative dance among subgroup, individual,

and blended identities, and Klein, Ziegert,

Knight, and Xiao (2006) found that emergency

room trauma teams dynamically shift leader-

ship between the formal leader and informal

leaders, thereby enabling both structure and

flexibility.

A dynamic equilibrium creates a virtuous cy-

cle. Following structuration theory, organization-

al systems are created and reproduced through

both structure and agency (Giddens, 1984). Ap-

plying consistently inconsistent management

strategies further embeds tensions within the

system’s strategies, structures, rules, processes,

and identities. As such, paradoxes reflect both

inherent features of organizations and the

agency that created and continues to reproduce

those systems. Yet even as virtuous cycles can

reinforce underlying tensions, achieving bene-

fits from those tensions is not easy. The threat of

vicious cycles persists, requiring managers to

remain vigilant as they iterate between accep-

tance and paradoxical resolution strategies.

Paradox studies have stressed these dynam-

ics. Luscher and Lewis (2008) proposed that dif-

ferent types of paradoxical tensions are interwo-

ven and reinforcing, just as strategies for their

management interact in an ongoing cycle. Con-

cluding their action research, they stressed that

managing paradox is precarious since actors

are likely to return to past practices. Dualities

become taken-for-granted elements of organiza-

tional life, tempting actors to apply dichotomous

either/or frames. Similarly, Clegg and col-

leagues (2002) described organizations in a state

of permanent dialectics fueled by the interplay

between paradoxical tensions and their man-

agement. The authors did not bemoan this state

but, rather, depicted ongoing tensions as natu-

ral, encouraging managers to remain reflective

and thereby manage paradoxes in ways that tap

their positive potential.

The Outcome: Sustainability

What is the outcome of a virtuous cycle of

managing tensions? Paradox research points to

possibilities. Effectively attending to contradic-

tory demands simultaneously has been associ-

ated with career success (O’Mahony & Bechky,

2006), exceptional leadership capabilities (Deni-

son et al., 1995), high-performing groups (Mur-

nighan & Conlon, 1991), and organizational per-

formance (Cameron & Lavine, 2006; Tushman,

Smith, Wood, Westerman, & O’Reilly, 2010). We

expand on such studies, proposing that a dy-

namic equilibrium unleashes the power of par-

adox to foster sustainability. Individuals,

groups, and firms achieve short-term excellence

while ensuring that such performance fuels

adaptation and growth enabling long-term suc-

cess (Cameron & Lavine, 2006). More specifi-

cally, a dynamic equilibrium enables sustain-

ability through three mechanisms: (1) enabling

learning and creativity, (2) fostering flexibility

and resilience, and (3) unleashing human poten-

tial.

By managing organizational paradox, a dy-

namic equilibrium fosters learning and creativ-

ity. In a study of fifty-four highly creative indi-

viduals, Rothenberg (1979) found that their

genius stemmed from the capacity to juxtapose

opposing ideas. Einstein’s theory of relativity

2011 393Smith and Lewis

emerged from thinking about the same object

simultaneously in motion and at rest. Mozart’s

music is a function of engaging concordance

with discordance, and Picasso’s paintings re-

flect both calm and chaos. Similarly, Suedfeld et

al. (1992) noted that world leaders attending to

some of the most complex problems juxtapose

contradictory elements to understand their dif-

ferences and to explore points of intersection. At

an organizational level, Eisenhardt and West-

cott (1988) found that linking conflicting strate-

gies can spur organizational learning. Juxtapos-

ing opposing forces may create the context for

leaders to engage in creative problem solving,

allowing their organizations to continuously im-

prove.

Managing paradoxical tensions also helps in-

dividuals, groups, and firms to be flexible and

resilient, fostering more dynamic decision mak-

ing. A well-aligned system that chooses be-

tween opposing elements may attain short-term

success but can become static and inert (Tush-

man & O’Reilly, 1996). Complex interdependen-

cies can trap resources (Miller, 1993), since core

capabilities can become core rigidities (Leon-

ard-Barton, 1992; Tripsas, 1997). Likewise, lead-

ers can become cognitively committed to a sin-

gular focus (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). In contrast,

attending to competing demands simultane-

ously involves a consistent and mindful shifting

of cognition, restructuring of resources, altering

of structures, and rethinking of goals (Weick,

Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999). Such constant move-

ment fosters adaptability (Farjoun, 2002; Weick

& Quinn, 1999).

Finally, adopting a dynamic equilibrium ap-

proach to organizing can unleash human poten-

tial. Individuals can experience positive energy

and success in response to the creativity and

learning fueled from the juxtaposition of contra-

dictory tensions. Positive energy creates the

conditions for individuals to be more engaged in

high-quality connections (Dutton & Heaphy,

2003), more persistent in the face of challenges

(Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), and more

dedicated to reaching their goals (Kirschen-

baum, 1984). In turn, this energy helps raise

team effectiveness (Losada & Heaphy, 2004), as

well as organizational performance (Cameron &

Lavine, 2006). In sum, a dynamic equilibrium

fosters and reinforces commitment to multiple,

competing agendas. Attending to paradox and

building supportive capabilities enable orga-

nizing to become a fluid, reflective, and sustain-

able process.

Proposition 3: Managing paradoxical

tension via dynamic, purposeful, and

ongoing strategies of acceptance and

resolution (iterating between splitting

and integration) fosters sustainability.

DISCUSSION

Over the past twenty years, researchers have

advocated paradox as a provocative and pow-

erful lens for comprehending and managing or-

ganizational tensions (e.g., Cameron & Quinn,

1988; Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). Yet

as paradox has become more pervasive in our

literature, its definitions, focus, and uses appear

increasingly eclectic. Seeking to further unleash

the power of a paradox perspective for theory

and practice, we reviewed existing studies of

paradox and integrated their insights within a

dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The

review highlights varied empirical and theoret-

ical exemplars that may guide future research

while surfacing key debates.

The dynamic equilibrium model advances our

understanding of paradox is several ways. First,

this model responds to key debates about the

nature and management of paradox. Second,

the model attends to the dynamic and persistent

nature of organizational paradoxes, depicting

how paradoxical tensions and their manage-

ment might interact in an ongoing, cyclical pro-

cess. Finally, the dynamic equilibrium model

proposes that this virtuous cycle enables sus-

tainability by fostering creativity and learning,

enabling flexibility and resilience, and unleash-

ing human potential.

Alternative Perspectives on Organizational

Tensions: Beyond Contingency Theory

We began this article by comparing a paradox

perspective with contingency theory, suggesting

that they both attend to underlying organization-

al tensions but with divergent assumptions and

responses. We now return to this discussion,

using this comparison to further highlight the

benefit and boundary conditions of a paradox

perspective.

Tensions are at the core of organizational re-

search. Even before contingency theory, early

394 AprilAcademy of Management Review

researchers responded to tensions by seeking

the “one best way to organize.” Scholars sought

to articulate generalizable principles about why

firms benefit from a more hierarchical versus

flat structure (Fayol, 1990) or from more coercive

versus self-directed HR practices (McGregor,

1960; Taylor, 1911). In reaction to this perspec-

tive, contingency theory emerged in the 1960s,

calling for researchers to consider the condi-

tions under which alternative elements of ten-

sions were most effective (i.e., Galbraith, 1973;

Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Woodward, 1965). Ac-

cording to this lens, success depends on align-

ment within the internal system and with the

external environment. The role of management

is to recognize and then resolve tensions. Con-

tingency theory has been used to study organi-

zational tensions across phenomena and levels

of analysis (Luthans & Stewart, 1977; Tosi & Slo-

cum, 1984).

A paradox perspective offers an alternative.

As with contingency theory, a paradox perspec-

tive explores tensions across phenomena and

levels. But in contrast to contingency theory, a

paradox perspective assumes that tensions per-

sist within complex and dynamic systems.

These underlying tensions are not only normal

but, if harnessed, can be beneficial and power-

ful. The juxtaposition of coexisting opposites in-

tensifies experiences of tension, challenging ac-

tors’ cognitive limits, demanding creative

sensemaking, and seeking more fluid, reflexive,

and sustainable management strategies.

Contrasting a paradox perspective with con-

tingency theory and early organizational theo-

ries accentuates distinctions between their as-

sociated research questions, methodological

designs, and practical implications (see Table

1). Early organizational theories asked, “Is A or B

more effective?” Contingency theory asks, “Un-

der what conditions is A or B more effective?” A

paradox perspective, in contrast, asks, “How can

organizations and their managers effectively

engage A and B simultaneously?” Such differ-

ences further influence methodological choices.

Early theories compared alternatives, whereas

contingency theory suggests explanatory meth-

ods that address specific variables, seek mean

tendencies, and emphasize cause and effect.

This orientation contrasts with the contextual-

ized and process-oriented methodologies often

adopted to identify paradoxical tensions and

their management. These include more discur-

sive and systemic methods that stress context

and process, ranging from Luscher and Lewis’s

(2008) action research to Huy’s (2002) multiyear

inductive field study.

Finally, the epistemological assumptions of

these theories drive different practical implica-

tions. Early theories were based on the notion

that there is one best way. Contingency theory

assumes that alternative approaches depend on

the situation and effective managers split ten-

sions and choose the pole that best aligns strat-

egy with structure (Chandler, 1962), internal or-

ganizational factors (Beer, 1980; Nadler &

TABLE 1

Alternative Approaches to Managing Organizational Tensions

Key Theory/

Perspective

Early

Organizational

Theories Contingency Paradox

Foundational research Fayol (1911), Taylor

(1911)

Woodward (1965),

Lawrence & Lorsch

(1967), Galbraith (1973)

Smith & Berg (1987),

Cameron & Quinn

(1988), Poole & Van

de Ven (1989)

Approach to organiza-

tional tension

A or B? Under what conditions A

or B?

How to engage A and B

simultaneously?

Research methods Comparison of

alternatives

Mean tendencies, limited

variables

Systemic, discursive,

contextual methods

Epistemological

assumptions

One best way to be

successful

Alignment and consistency

with internal and

external environment

enable success

Contradiction is

inherent and can be

powerful to enable

peak performance if

harnessed

2011 395Smith and Lewis

Tushman, 1992), and external environment (Law-

rence & Lorsch, 1967). These theories further

view time as linear and quantitative and

change as a predominantly episodic experience.

Such efforts require an orientation characterized

by risk management and rational decision mak-

ing. In contrast, a paradox perspective seeks

managerial strategies that support contrasting

elements simultaneously. Even as managerial

responses might involve splitting in the short

term—leveraging insights from contingency

theory to guide choices that align the firm with

its current context—they also move beyond to

seek integration and iterative decision making

and attend to temporality that is both episodic

and quantitative, as well as continuous and

qualitative (Huy, 2001; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Do-

ing so requires management that can attend to

complexity, engage ambiguity, and enable un-

certainty.

While contingency theory remains a dominant

model for organizational theorizing, a paradox

perspective offers a timely alternative. Organi-

zations increasingly face conditions of plurality,

change, and scarcity. These factors not only in-

crease the salience of persistent tensions but

also limit the effectiveness of singular strate-

gies. For example, firms once may have been

able to shift between periods of exploitative in-

novation punctuated by more radical explora-

tion (i.e., Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). Yet the

pace of technological change today demands

that firms simultaneously excel at both explora-

tion and exploitation (Smith & Tushman, 2005),

enabling stability and flexibility (Feldman &

Pentland, 2003; Rindova & Kotha, 2001) and

building contexts for learning and performance

(Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1994).

Similarly, organizational boundaries appear

increasingly blurred. Organizations could once

justify bifurcating social and financial goals to

either for-profit and not-for-profit entities (i.e.,

Friedman, 1970; Levitt, 1958). Yet as globaliza-

tion, technology, and expansion increase social

ills, human rights violations, pollution, climate

change, and so forth, for-profit organizations are

increasingly attending to social as well as fi-

nancial outcomes (Margolis & Walsh, 2003). At

the same time, population growth mixed with

financial crises forces not-for-profits, including

hospitals, universities, social service institu-

tions, and so on, to make difficult decisions

based on their bottom line (Golden-Biddle &

Rao, 1997; Jarzabkowski & Sillince, 2007). In ad-

dition, rising numbers of “hybrid” organizations

are emerging that explicitly seek to achieve

both profit and social goals (Battilana & Dorado,

2010; Pache & Santos, 2010). These multiple bot-

tom lines create paradoxical demands on orga-

nizations’ strategy (Smith & Tushman, 2005).

Likewise, at the individual level, gender roles

are no longer clearly divided. The family struc-

ture dominant in the early twentieth century

split responsibilities for work and family

along gender lines. Yet a changing family

structure, the economy, and the feminist move-

ment challenge such stark divisions. As new

options surface, the tensions between work

and family become more salient (i.e., Roth-

bard, 2001).

We do not propose that a paradox perspective

should replace contingency theory but, rather,

that it provides a complementary alternative. In

seeking to identify the conditions under which

varied approaches are most appropriate, contin-

gency research is restricted to a limited number

of variables and holds constant broad contexts

and long time horizons (Tosi & Slocum, 1984).

Therefore, contingency theory is most valuable

when solving problems with a narrower context

in a shorter time horizon. Yet a contingency ap-

proach threatens to oversimplify contexts that

are more complex and dynamic. As Weick notes:

If a simple process is applied to complicated

data, then only a small portion of that data will

be registered, attended to, and made unequivo-

cal. Most of the input will remain untouched and

will remain a puzzle to people concerning what is

up and why they are unable to manage it (1979:

189).

The dynamic equilibrium model reconceptual-

izes organizing, challenging management the-

ory and organizational change practices to at-

tend to this complexity. Rather than choose

between dualities, paradox theory addresses

tensions that are synergistic and persistent. As

such, strategies of acceptance and resolution

seek to engage tensions and thereby enable

sustainability.

Toward a Theory of Paradox

Comparing paradox with contingency theory

highlights the potential for creating a theory of

paradox. Until now, we have referred to a para-

dox perspective, yet, like contingency theory,

396 AprilAcademy of Management Review

this lens offers an approach to tensions that

spans organizational phenomena, levels of

analysis, and theoretical perspectives. More-

over, we presented the dynamic equilibrium

model by integrating existing studies and pro-

posing testable propositions. The model thus of-

fers the basis for a theory of paradox, providing

common definitions, assumptions, mechanisms,

and outcomes for further study. At its core a

paradox theory presumes that tensions are inte-

gral to complex systems and that sustainability

depends on attending to contradictory yet inter-

woven demands simultaneously.

Why is a theory of paradox needed? First,

such a theory can unify the extensive yet varied

research in this area. The diverse literature of

paradox has come to resemble Wenger and Sny-

der’s (2000) paradox of communities of practice.

Such communities evolve through shared inter-

ests. Devoid of controls, their efforts flourish in

novel directions. Yet these novel directions cre-

ate broad assumptions and prevent a growing

community from effective interaction.

Minus an integrating theory, studies attend-

ing to simultaneous opposites coexist across

theoretical and phenomenological domains

without interacting with one another. Research

on hybrid identities, multiple logics, ambidex-

terity, and work/family integration all draw from

a similar assumption about the simultaneous

coexistence of competing alternatives and yet

could more effectively inform one another

about the management of tensions. Fully le-

veraging their potential, however, requires ef-

forts to identify commonalities and create in-

tegration through which paradox proponents

may connect, interact, and build from each

other’s understandings.

Providing a unifying platform can spur contin-

ued theoretical debate and guide future empir-

ical research. Such a theory not only offers a

response to organizational tensions but encour-

ages active searching for and surfacing of those

tensions to enhance creativity and performance.

Researchers can ask several primary questions

in approaching organizational phenomena: (1)

What tensions are embedded within organiza-

tions, and how and why are these tensions (not)

experienced by organizational members? (2)

How are these paradoxical tensions managed?

(3) What are the implications of their (in)effec-

tive management?

As with contingency theory, a theory of para-

dox provides a metatheoretical perspective that

can provide guidance on how other theories ask

questions and explore insights. For example,

organizational identity theorists can adopt a

paradoxical perspective to understand the in-

herent tensions in hybrid identity organizations

and identify strategies for the simultaneous

management of these tensions (Albert &

Whetten, 1985). Paradox theory offers a frame to

help neoinstitutional theorists explore the ten-

sions of multiple logics (Kraatz & Block, 2008).

Similarly, paradox theory shifts the questions

asked by motivational theorists from what the

conditions are under which individuals are

more driven by intrinsic or extrinsic motivators

(Ryan & Deci, 2000) or self-interest or social in-

terests (Crocker, 2008) to how individuals en-

gage in these competing drives simultaneously.

To further the development and application of

paradox theory, we encourage methodological

strategies that can investigate tensions, enable

contextual richness, and consider more cyclical

dynamics. Paradox studies demonstrate the

value of alternative tools, such as case studies

(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), action research

(Beech et al., 2004), systems approaches (Ster-

man, 2000), and agent-based models (Axelrod,

1997), for enabling more nuanced insights. If we

are to take paradoxes seriously, we need to de-

velop these and other methods to explore para-

doxical tensions, their management, and their

impact.

Paradox theory also can challenge us to re-

think our messages to practitioners. What would

it mean to teach managers about paradoxes?

Doing so could entail developing pedagogical

material that includes conceptual and theoreti-

cal understandings of paradox. Further, it

means helping students experience and learn to

accept tensions and apply paradoxical strate-

gies through varied structures, processes, and

leadership approaches.

Finally, a paradox theory offers opportunities

for enriching organizational theorizing. In 1989

Poole and Van de Ven responded to AMR’s spe-

cial issue on new theory by suggesting that jux-

taposing opposing theories can inspire novel

insights. While our paper has focused on tools

for exploring paradox in organizational phe-

nomena, we reassert and strengthen their claim

for using paradox as a tool for theorizing. How

would our research and theorizing across the

2011 397Smith and Lewis

Academy differ if we assumed that for every

thesis there is an antithesis?

Such an assump-

tion introduces the possibility of seeking oppos-

ing views of even our most well-established or-

ganizational theories. What is the opposing

theory to emotional contagion? Threat rigidity?

Upper echelon theory? What would theories look

like that embed contradictory phenomena? Par-

adox theory not only proposes that contradictory

theories exist but offers a process for academics

to start enriching and renewing our stock of or-

ganizational theories.

Next Steps

The future of paradox theory is bright. The

integrative model suggests several next steps,

while the reviewed exemplars offer guides for

such work. First, work could test our proposi-

tions. Both laboratory and field studies could

investigate the short- and long-term implica-

tions of identifying tensions, cognitively and

systemically accepting tensions, and dynami-

cally resolving those tensions over time. Indi-

viduals face tensions daily, creating signifi-

cant opportunity to observe or manipulate

their mental models along with their behav-

ioral responses to these tensions. Second,

even as paradox studies have expanded rap-

idly, new research can apply a dynamic equi-

librium model to varying organizational phe-

nomena. Third, while we focused on dualities,

paradox theory can be expanded to examine a

multiplicity of competing demands, such as

those noted by trialectics (e.g., Ford & Ford,

1994) and pluralism (e.g., Jarzabkowski &

Sillince, 2007).

CONCLUSION

Paradox is an old concept. Its roots lie in an-

cient teachings across Eastern and Western

thought, apparent in such works such as the Tao

Te Ching and the Judeo-Christian Bible. More

recent concepts of paradox draw upon the var-

ied philosophies of Kierkegaard, Hegel, Hamp-

den-Turner, and Weber and tap into the psycho-

logical insights of Freud, Rothenberg, and

Watzalawick (e.g., see Lewis, 2000; Smith & Berg,

1987; Symonds & Pudsey, 2008). Indeed, Mary

Parker Follet proposed ideas of circularity, dy-

namism, and simultaneity of opposing forces in

her 1920s management writings (Graham, 1996).

Today, as globalization, innovation, hyper-

competition, and social demands create more

dynamic and intricate environments, paradox

becomes a critical theoretical lens to under-

stand and to lead contemporary organizations.

Our goal in this paper therefore was not to re-

define paradox, but to renew the concept—to

propose and integrate research that draws from

existing literature and thereby encourage aca-

demics and practitioners to apply a paradox

theory. We hope that our work suggests ways to

understand and manage through this more com-

plex reality.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, W., & Clark, K. 1985. Innovation: Mapping the

winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14: 3–22.

Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, E. 1999. Flexibility vs.

efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the

Toyota Product System. Organization Science, 10: 43– 68.

Adner, R., & Helfat, C. 2002. Corporate effects and dynamic

managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Jour-

nal, 24: 1011–1025.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–295.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-

exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:

Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Sci-

ence, 20: 696 –717.

Argyris, C. 1988. Crafting a theory of practice: The case of

organizational paradoxes. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of

change in organization and management: 255–278. Cam-

bridge, MA: Ballinger.

Ashcraft, K. L., Kuhn, T., & Cooren, F. 2009. Constitutional

amendments: “Materializing” organizational communi-

cation. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 1– 64.

Auh, S., & Menguc, B. 2005. Balancing exploration and ex-

ploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity.

Journal of Business Research, 58: 1652–1661.

Axelrod, R. 1997. The complexity of cooperation: Agent-based

models of competition and collaboration. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Badaracco, J. L. 1998. The discipline of building character.

Harvard Business Review, 76(2): 114 –124.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. 2004. Organizational restructuring

and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 47: 523–549.

Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. 1999. Achievement goals

and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models.

We thank Jean Bartunek for raising this provocative

question with us.

398 AprilAcademy of Management Review

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 706 –

722.

Bartunek, J. 1988. The dynamics of personal and organiza-

tional reframing. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Par-

adox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in

organization and management: 137–162. Cambridge,

MA: Ballinger.

Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid

organizations: The case of commercial microfinance or-

ganizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1419 –

1440.

Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & Mac-

Lean, D. 2004. Paradox as invitation to act in problematic

change situations. Human Relations, 57: 1313–1332.

Beer, M. 1980. Organization change and development: A sys-

tems view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. 2009. A

dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting de-

mands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Indus-

trial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on

Science and Practice, 2: 305–337.

Bradach, J. L. 1997. Using the plural form in the management

of restaurant chains. Administrative Science Quarterly,

42: 276 –303.

Brewer, M. 1991. The social self: On being the same and

different at the same time. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 17: 475– 482.

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team

learning orientation and business unit performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 552–560.

Burgelman, R. A. 2002. Strategy as vector and inertia as

coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 47: 325–327.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innova-

tion. London: Tavistock.

Cameron, K. 1986. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and

conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness.

Management Science, 32: 539 –553.

Cameron, K., & Lavine, M. 2006. Making the impossible pos-

sible: Leading extraordinary performance. San Fran-

cisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. 1988. Organizational paradox and

transformation. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Para-

dox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in

organization and management: 1–18. Cambridge, MA:

Ballinger.

Chandler, A. D. 1962. Strategy and structure: Chapters in the

history of the industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Cialdini, R., Trost, M., & Newsom, J. 1995. Preference for

consistency: The development of a valid measure and

the discovery of surprising behavioral implications.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 318 –

328.

Clegg, S. R. 2002. General introduction. In S. R. Clegg (Ed.),

Management and organization paradoxes: 1–10. Amster-

dam: John Benjamins.

Clegg, S. R., Cuhna, J. V., & Cuhna, M. P. 2002. Management

paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55: 483–

503.

Cohen, M. D., & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A

new perspective on learning and innovation. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 35: 128 –152.

Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. 1974. Leadership and ambiguity:

The American college president. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Crocker, J. 2008. From egosystem to ecosystem: Implications

for learning, relationships, and well-being. In H. Way-

ment & J. Brauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psy-

chological explorations of the quiet ego: 63–72. Wash-

ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the

firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

D’Aveni, R. A., & MacMillan, I. C. 1990. Crisis and the content

of managerial communications: A study of the focus of

attention of top managers in surviving and failing firms.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 634 – 657.

Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. 2001. The dynamics of

collective leadership and strategic change in pluralistic

organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44:

809 – 837.

Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. 2007. Strategizing in

pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Hu-

man Relations, 60: 179 –215.

Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. 1995. Paradox and

performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity

in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6: 524 –

540.

Deutsch, M. 1968. The effects of cooperation and competition

upon group processes. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander

(Eds.), Group dynamics (3rd ed.): 461– 482. New York:

Harper & Row.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. 1995. The stakeholder theory of

the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications.

Academy of Management Review, 20: 65–91.

Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. 2002. Beauty is

in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational

identification, identity, and image on the cooperative

behavior of physicians. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 47: 507–533.

Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror:

Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 34: 517–554.

Dutton, J., & Heaphy, E. 2003. The power of high quality

connections. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn

(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations

for a new discipline: 263–278. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.

Dweck, C. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New

York: Random House.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities:

What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105–

1121.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Westcott, B. 1988. Paradoxical demands

2011 399Smith and Lewis

and the creation of excellence: The case of just in time

manufacturing. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Para-

dox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in

organization and management: 19 –54. Cambridge, MA:

Ballinger.

Eisenstat, R. A., Beer, M., Foote, N., Fredberg, T., & Norrgren,

F. 2008. The uncompromising leader. Harvard Business

Review, 86(7/8): 50 –57.

El-Sawad, A., Arnold, J., & Cohen, L. 2004. “Doublethink”: The

prevalence and function of contradictions in accounts of

organizational life. Human Relations, 57: 1179 –1203.

Farjoun, M. 2002. The dialectics of institutional development

in emergent and turbulent fields: The history of pricing

conventions in the online database industry. Academy

of Management Journal, 45: 848 – 874.

Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as

duality. Academy of Management Review, 35: 202–225.

Fayol, H. 1990. General principles of management. In D. S.

Pugh (Ed.), Organizational theory (3rd ed.): 179 –181. New

York: Penguin Books.

Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing

organizational routines as a source of flexibility and

change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94 –118.

Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evan-

ston, IL: Row Peterson.

Fiol, C. M. 2002. Capitalizing on paradox: The role of lan-

guage in transforming organizational identities. Orga-

nization Science, 13: 653– 666.

Fiol, C. M., Pratt, M. G., & O’Connor, E. J. 2009. Managing

intractable identity conflict. Academy of Management

Review, 34: 32–55.

Flynn, F., & Chatman, J. 2001. Strong cultures and innovation:

Oxymoron and opportunity? In C. Cooper, S. Cartwright,

& C. Earley (Eds.), International handbook of organiza-

tional culture and climate: 263–287. Chichester, UK: Wi-

ley.

Ford, J., & Backoff, R. 1988. Organizational change in and out

of dualities and paradox. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of

change in organization and management: 81–121. Cam-

bridge, MA: Ballinger.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction,

and attraction in change. Academy of Management Re-

view, 19: 756 –785.

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. 2001. Affective influences on

judgments and behavior in organizations: An informa-

tion processing perspective. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 86: 3–34.

Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in pos-

itive psychology. American Psychologist, 56: 218 –226.

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder

approach. Boston: Pitman.

Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to

increase its profits, New York Times Magazine, Septem-

ber 13: 32–33, 122, 124, 126.

Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Read-

ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and look-

ing backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Ad-

ministrative Science Quarterly, 45: 113–137.

Ghemawat, P., & Costa, J. 1993. The organizational tension

between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 14: 59 –73.

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. 1994. Linking organizational

context and managerial action: The dimensions of qual-

ity management. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 91–

112.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, conse-

quences, and mediating role of organizational ambidex-

terity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209 –226.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the

theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of Califor-

nia Press.

Gilbert, C. 2005. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Re-

source versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management

Journal, 48: 741–763.

Gilbert, C. 2006. Change in the presence of residual fit: Can

competing frames co-exist? Organization Science, 17:

150 –167.

Gittell, J. H. 2004. Paradox of coordination and control. Cali-

fornia Management Review, 42(3): 101–117.

Golden-Biddle, K., & Rao, H. 1997. Breaches in the boardroom:

Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in

a non profit organization. Organization Science, 8: 593–

611.

Graham, P. (Ed.). 1996. Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of man-

agement. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay

between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 49: 693–706.

Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. 1993. Spontaneous humor as an

indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations.

Organization Studies, 14: 505–526.

He, Z., & Wong, P. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An

empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organi-

zation Science, 15: 481– 494.

Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations.

New York: Wiley.

Henderson, R., & Clark, K. 1990. Architectural innovation: The

reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the

failure of established firms. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 35: 9 –30.

Hoffman, A., & Woody, J. G. 2008. Memo to the CEO: Climate

change, what’s your business strategy? Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelli-

gence, and radical change. Academy of Management

Review, 24: 325–345.

Huy, Q. N. 2001. Time, temporal capability, and planned

change. Academy of Management Review, 26: 601– 623.

Huy, Q. N. 2002. The emotional balancing of organizational

400 AprilAcademy of Management Review

continuity and radical change: The contribution of mid-

dle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47:

31– 69.

Iansiti, M. 1995. Shooting the rapids: Managing new product

development in turbulent environments. California

Management Journal, 38(1): 37–58.

Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with im-

age and identity in professional adaptation. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 44: 764 –791.

Ilies, R., Wilson, K. S., & Wagner, D. T. 2009. The spillover of

daily job satisfaction onto employees’ family lives: The

facilitating role of work-family integration. Academy of

Management Journal, 52: 87–102.

Jarzabkowski, P., & Sillince, J. 2007. A rhetoric-in-context

approach to building commitment to multiple strategic

goals. Organizational Studies, 28: 1639 –1665.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. 1996. Using the balanced score-

card as a strategic management system. Harvard Busi-

ness Review, 74(1): 75– 85.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1966. The social psychology of organiza-

tions. New York: Wiley.

Keller, J., & Loewenstein, J. 2010. The cultural category of

cooperation: A consensus model analysis of the United

States and China. Organization Science: Articles in Ad-

vance, DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0530.

Kirschenbaum, D. 1984. Self regulation and sport psychol-

ogy: Nurturing and emerging symbiosis. Journal of Sport

Psychology, 8: 26 –34.

Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Dynamic

delegation: Shared, hierarchical and deindividualized

leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Sci-

ence Quarterly, 51: 590 – 621.

Kraatz, M., & Block, E. 2008. Organizational implications of

institutional pluralism. In C. O. R. Greenwood, R.

Suddaby, & K. Sahlin-Andersson (Ed.), Handbook of or-

ganizational institutionalism: 243–275. London: Sage.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where is

the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search

for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal,

49: 1031–1057.

Langer, E. 1989. Mindfulness. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J. 1967. Organizations and environ-

ment: Managing differentiation and integration. Home-

wood, IL: Irwin.

Leonard-Barton, D. A. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigid-

ities: A paradox in managing new product development.

Strategic Management Journal, 13(Summer): 111–125.

Levitt, T. 1958. The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard

Business Review, 36(5): 41–50.

Lewis, M. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more compre-

hensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25:

760 –776.

Losada, M. F., & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and

connectivity in the performance of business teams. Jour-

nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47: 740 –765.

Luscher, L., & Lewis, M. 2008. Organizational change and

managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox.

Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221–240.

Luthans, F., & Stewart, T. I. 1977. A general contingency

theory of management. Academy of Management Re-

view, 2: 181–195.

Maitlis, S., & Ozcelik, H. 2004. Toxic decision processes: A

study of emotion and organizational decision making.

Organization Science, 15: 375–393.

March, J. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organization-

al learning. Organization Science, 2: 71– 87.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. 2003. Misery loves company:

Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 48: 268 –305.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. 1991. Culture and the self: Impli-

cations for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psycho-

logical Review, 98: 224 –253.

McGrath, J. 1982. Dilemmatics: The study of research choices

and dilemmas. In J. McGrath, J. Martin, & R. A. Kulka

(Eds.), Judgment calls in research: 69 – 80. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of

Management Review, 18: 116 –138.

Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. 2006. Adding inter-

personal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s ex-

ploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management

Journal, 49: 709 –722.

Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. 1991. The dynamics of intense

work groups: A study of British string quartets. Admin-

istrative Science Quarterly, 36: 165–186.

Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. 1992. Designing organizations

that have good fit. In D. Nadler (Ed.), Organizational

architecture: Designs for changing organizations: 39 –56.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. 2002. A firm as a dialectical being:

Towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Cor-

porate Change, 11: 995–1009.

O’Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. Stretchwork: Managing

the career progression paradox in external labor mar-

kets. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 918 –941.

O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dy-

namic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185–206.

Osono, E., Shimizu, N., & Takeuchi, H. 2008. Extreme Toyota:

Radical contradictions that drive success at the world’s

best manufacturer. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. 2010. When worlds collide: The

internal dynamics of organizational responses to con-

flicting institutional demands. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 35: 455– 476.

Peach, J., & Dugger, W. M. 2006. An intellectual history of

abundance. Journal of Economic Issues, 40: 693–706.

Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. 1999. Culture, dialectics and reasoning

about contradictions. American Psychologist, 54: 741–

754.

2011 401Smith and Lewis

Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. 1989. Using paradox to build

management and organizational theory. Academy of

Management Review, 14: 562–578.

Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Classifying managerial

responses to multiple organizational identities. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 25: 18 – 42.

Putnam, L. 1986. Contradictions and paradoxes in organiza-

tions. In L. Thayer (Ed.), Organization communications:

Emerging perspectives: 151–167. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Quinn, R. E. 1988. Mastering the paradoxes and competing

demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexter-

ity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of

Management, 34: 375– 409.

Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. 2001. Continuous “morphing”:

Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and

function. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1263–

1280.

Rosenbloom, R. S., & Christensen, C. M. 1994. Technological

discontinuities, organizational capabilities, and strate-

gic commitments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3:

655– 685.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics

of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 46: 655– 684.

Rothenberg, A. 1979. The emerging goddess. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic moti-

vation: Classic definitions and new directions. Contem-

porary Educational Psychology, 25: 54 – 67.

Schneider, K. J. 1990. The paradoxical self: Toward an under-

standing of our contradictory nature. New York: Insight

Books.

Schweitzer, M. E., Lisa, O., & Douma, B. 2004. Goal setting as

a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 47: 422– 432.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2000. Positive psychol-

ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55: 5–14.

Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of a

learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Seo, M., & Creed, W. 2002. Institutional contradictions,

praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspec-

tive. Academy of Management Review, 27: 222–247.

Seo, M.-G., Putnam, L., & Bartunek, J. M. 2004. Dualities and

tensions of planned organizational change. In S. Poole &

A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organizational

change: 73–107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. 2003. Temporarily divide to

conquer: Centralization, decentralization and reinte-

grated organizational approaches to exploration and

adaptation. Organization Science, 14: 650 – 669.

Simon, H. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings

of the American Philosophical Society, 106: 467– 482.

Smith, K., & Berg, D. 1987. Paradoxes of group life. San Fran-

cisco: Josey-Bass.

Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. 2010. Complex busi-

ness models: Managing strategic paradox simultane-

ously. Long Range Planning, 43: 448 – 461.

Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic

contradictions: A top management model for managing

innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536.

Sterman, J. D. 2000. Business dynamics: Systems thinking and

modeling for a complex world. New York: Irwin.

Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P., & Streufert, S. 1992. Conceptual/

integrative complexity. In C. Smith, J. Atkinson, D. Mc-

Clelland, & J. Verof (Eds.), Motivation and personality:

Handbook of thematic content analysis: 393– 400. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sull, D. 1999. The dynamics of standing still: Firestone Tire

and Rubber and the radial revolution. Business History

Review, 73: 430 – 464.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. 2003. Control and collabora-

tion: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 28: 397– 415.

Symonds, M., & Pudsey, J. 2008. The concept of “paradox” in

the work of Max Weber. Sociology, 42: 223–241.

Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. 2006. Superman or the Fantastic Four?

Knowledge combination and experience in innovative

teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 723–740.

Taylor, F. W. 1911. The principles of scientific management.

New York: Harper & Brothers.

Teece, D., & Pisano, G. 1994. The dynamic capabilities of

firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change,

3: 537–556.

Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities

and strategic management. Strategic Management Jour-

nal, 18: 509 –533.

Thompson, J. 1967. Organizations in action: Social science

bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tosi, H. L., & Slocum, J. W. 1984. Contingency theory: Some

directions. Journal of Management, 10: 9 –26.

Trethewey, A., & Ashcraft, K. L. 2004. Practicing disorganiza-

tion: The development of applied perspectives on living

with tension. Journal of Applied Communication Re-

search, 32: 81– 88.

Trevin˜ o, L. K., & Brown, M. E. 2004. Managing to be ethical:

Debunking five business ethics myths. Academy of Man-

agement Executive, 18(2): 69 – 81.

Tripsas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruc-

tion: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in

the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal,

18: 119 –142.

Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabilities, cognition and

inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Man-

agement Journal, 18(Summer Special Issue): 119 –142.

Tushman, M., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizational evolution:

A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorienta-

tion. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7: 171–222.

Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R., Westerman, G., &

O’Reilly, C. 2010. Organizational design and innovation

streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19: 1331–1366.

402 AprilAcademy of Management Review

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1996. Ambidextrous

organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolution-

ary change. California Management Review, 38(4): 8 –30.

Van Der Vegt, G., & Bunderson, J. S. 2005. Learning and

performance in multidisciplinary teams: The impor-

tance of collective team identification. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 48: 532–555.

van Marrewijk, A., Clegg, S. R., Pitsis, T. S., & Veenswijk, M.

2008. Managing public-private megaprojects: Para-

doxes, complexity, and project design. International

Journal of Project Management, 26: 591– 600.

Vince, R., & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attach-

ment: Accessing and working with emotions and rela-

tions underlying organizational change. Organization

Studies, 17: 1–21.

Virany, B., & Tushman, M. L. 1986. Top management teams

and corporate success in an emerging industry. Journal

of Business Venturing, 1: 261–274.

Volberda, H. W., & Lewin, A. 2003. Co-evolutionary dynamics

within and between firms: From evolution to co-

evolution. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 2111–2136.

Voorhees, B. 1986. Toward duality theory. General Systems

Bulletin, 16(2): 58 – 61.

Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Weick, K. 1993. The collapse of sensemaking in organiza-

tions: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 38: 628 – 652.

Weick, K., & Quinn, R. 1999. Organizational change and

development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 361–386.

Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 1999. Organizing for

high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. Re-

search in Organizational Behavior, 21: 81–123.

Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. 2000. Communities of prac-

tice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Re-

view, 78(1): 139 –145.

Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial organization: Theory and prac-

tice. London: Oxford University Press.

Zilber, T. B. 2002. Institutionalization as an interplay be-

tween action, meanings, and actors: The case of a rape

crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal,

45: 234 –254.

Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate learning and the

evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Sci-

ence, 13: 339 –351.

Wendy K. Smith (smithw@udel.edu) is associate professor of management in the

Lerner College of Business and Economics at the University of Delaware. She received

her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Harvard University and the Harvard Busi-

ness School. Her research focuses on managing strategic paradoxes, particularly

exploring how top management teams and their organizations respond to tensions

between exploring and exploiting or between social missions and financial goals.

Marianne W. Lewis (marianne.lewis@uc.edu) is professor and associate dean at the

University of Cincinnati. She received her Ph.D. in management from the University of

Kentucky. Her research explores paradoxes that impede and enable innovation.

2011 403Smith and Lewis

not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Applicability of Both/and Thinking in International Sustainable Business Studies

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

The purpose of this article is to provide a methodological demonstration making use of the both/and thinking (BAT) framework to perform analysis of intertemporal tensions. The BAT framework as an analytical tool is able to holistically examine complex multi-level business problems that involve tensions, contradictions and paradox that could be useful to others. Engaging the BAT framework in international sustainable business studies can be a challenging choice as it requires holistic understanding of the affects in the separation of contradictory elements across time and distance to shape research inquiry and direction. The approach considers that while paradoxes deal with contradictions, as a methodological process it enables a strategy for juxtaposing apparent opposites using an integrative lens embedded in BAT. As such, the use of BAT is discussed using a constructionist approach to gain insight and understanding on surfacing intertemporal tensions exemplified by the socio-business case study that is situated in the chocolate industry. The article draws on BAT primary and sub-themes and discusses implications and applications as a technique to frame the grappling of tensions. The findings are guided by the existing literature and the analysis from the empirical case study providing contributions in practice to further support the use of the BAT framework. Paradoxes examined in this article are based on affects for the themes of organizing, belonging, performing and learning. This article provides understanding of the findings to gain insight from an empirical and theoretical perspective to illustrate the practical implications of the methodological approach. As such, the principles of paradox theory are placed in the context of the BAT framework which are exemplified by making use of the empirical case study data to surface the potential applicability of the approach for future research. This article aims to contribute to the business and management methodological literature by demonstrating the use of the BAT approach and contributes with specificity in relation to the paradox taxonomy and the use of the BAT framework. Despite certain limitations, the BAT framework can be an excellent choice for qualitative sustainable business research that deals with contradictory demands.

Wieviel Harmonie verträgt ein Gesundheitssystem?

Article

Jan 2023

Die Patientenorientierung scheint – zumindest an der Oberfläche – alle Akteure des Gesundheitswesens zu einen. Unter der Oberfläche existiert aber eine Vielzahl von berechtigten Partikularinteressen. In der allgemeinen Managementlehre gibt es eine umfassende Diskussion zu den Implikationen unterschiedlicher Interessen und vor allem dazu, wann sie konstruktiv wirken und wann sie zu unauflösbaren Konflikten führen. Anhand von Beispielen aus der aktuellen Gesundheitspolitik wird aufgezeigt, wie diese Erkenntnisse auf das Gesundheitssystem übertragen werden können.

Improving Virtual Team Collaboration Paradox Management: A Field Experiment

Article

Jun 2024

Virtual teams are ubiquitous in the workplace, yet they experience frequent collaboration challenges. Successfully managing the team collaboration paradox, in terms of maintaining a unified team perspective and diverse individual perspectives, presents a potentially important lever to improve virtual team performance. However, scholars have conflicting opinions regarding whether such improvement is possible. We argue that team collaboration paradox management will positively relate to team performance over time and can be improved via a theory-based intervention. This intervention draws from theory on paradoxes for its content (paradoxical thinking) and team development interventions for its structure (general content knowledge, team-specific feedback, action-focused planning). Given the complexity of paradoxes, it is unclear whether a single training session could substantively improve their management; therefore, one intervention condition was comprised of a single training session and the other condition included a follow-up session. Analyzing two waves of multisource quantitative data from a sample of 76 virtual teams from 37 organizations, we find a positive relationship between team collaboration paradox management and team performance at both time periods. We also find that only the intervention condition with the follow-up session, as compared with untreated control teams, significantly improved how well teams managed the collaboration paradox and thereby facilitated subsequent changes in team performance. Supplementary qualitative insights from the intervention sessions illuminate the actions virtual teams took to improve their collaboration paradox management. These results have important implications for the paradox and teams literatures, as well as the managers and members of virtual teams. Funding: This work was supported by the SHRM Foundation [Project 166].

Examining the competing demands of business and sustainability: What do corporate sustainability discourses reveal?

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Riikka Tapaninaho

Resolving the Paradox of Openness for Community-Based Digital Ventures

Conference Paper

Jun 2024

Openness is a double-edged sword for new ventures to create and capture value, particularly in the digital era. However, it remains unclear how digital ventures dynamically manage the paradox of openness in open-source communities with high fluidity. Through a longitudinal case study, we develop an integrated framework of the openness dynamics of community-based digital ventures based on resource dependence theory. First, we adopt a process perspective to deepen the understanding of the paradox of openness. Second, we find that managing resource dependence is the underlying mechanism to resolve the paradox of openness in open-source collaboration. Third, we enrich the understanding of managing fluid resource providers by explicating the four strategies, including technology sharing, visibility enhancing, fast resource absorption, and dynamical boundary changes. Our study contributes to the paradox of openness, resource dependence theory, and fluid community management.

Why Digital Platforms by Incumbents Fail: Results from a Delphi Study

Article

Jan 2024

In an economy increasingly dominated by digital platforms, incumbent firms are trying to launch platforms associated with their original products in an attempt to remain relevant and create additional value propositions. Yet, evidence shows that digital platform design from within a non-digital product company is not straightforward and many failures have been observed. As previous research is scarce to explain the root causes of this lack of platform success, we conducted a Delphi study with global experts in the automotive industry to identify those factors that can explain why these incumbents are failing with their digital platform initiatives. We identified six categories that complement the established body of knowledge on failure factors with digital platforms. Based on that, we suggest an integrative framework to explain typical failures in digital platforms by incumbents.

Framing Transitions: Scenarios and Design for the Strategic Redirection of Companies within Planetary Boundaries

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Estelle Berger

Paradoxical behavior toward innovation: Knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, and career sustainability interactions

Article

Jun 2024
Eur Manag J

A Phenomenological Research on the Role of Paradoxical Behaviors of the Team Leader in the Grateful Team Climate

Article

Jun 2024

Kamil Ahat

This research aims to investigate the relationship between the feeling of gratitude in team members and paradoxical leadership behavior in a sports team where a grateful team climate is experienced. For this purpose, the feelings, thoughts and experiences of the athletes in a fencing team characterized by the phenomenon of gratitude were consulted. “What are the paradoxical leadership behaviors that make team members feel grateful?” question constitutes the main problem of this research. In collecting research data, in addition to the grateful team climate scale, the team members' experiences within the team were accessed through structured open-ended questions, and the effects of paradoxical leadership behavior were sought in these experiences. Data was analyzed with MAXQDA 24 ANALYTICS Pro. Based on the data obtained in accordance with the phenomenology pattern application, the inter-phenomenal relationships determined were evaluated in the context of the emergence of the gratitude climate and the paradoxical leader's attitudes and behaviors. According to the research findings, it has been concluded that paradoxical leadership attitudes and behaviors have an impact on the formation of a grateful team climate. According to the research findings, it has been concluded that paradoxical leadership attitudes and behaviors have a decisive role in the formation of a grateful team climate.

Widerspruch und/oder Paradoxie?

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Patrick Sailer

Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag in der Zeitschrift „Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. (GIO)“ arbeitet ein Verfahren aus, mit dem Führungskräfte zwischen Widersprüchen und Paradoxien in Organisationen unterscheiden und entsprechend zielgerichtet intervenieren können. Es ist nichts Neues, dass in Organisationen Widersprüche wahrgenommen werden. Auffällig ist jedoch, dass dort, wo früher Widersprüche erkannt wurden, heute überall Paradoxien entdeckt werden. Fast gebetsmühlenartig wird Managern im aktuellen Managementdiskurs dazu geraten, statt auf ein „Entweder-oder-Mindset“ auf „Sowohl-als-auch-Lösungen“ zu setzen. In diesem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass nicht jeder Widerspruch eine Paradoxie darstellt und dass daher „Sowohl-als-auch“-Lösungen nicht immer die geeignetste Reaktion auf Widersprüche sind. Aus der Unterscheidung von Widerspruch und Paradoxie sollen Empfehlungen für den praktischen Umgang abgeleitet werden. Dazu wird ein Prüfverfahren für die Praxis ausgearbeitet, mit dem die Unterscheidung in Widersprüche und Paradoxien in der Praxis gelingt und geeignete Interventionen gewählt werden können.

Dualities and Tensions of Planned Organizational Change

Chapter

Full-text available

Jun 2004

Our purpose in this chapter is twofold. First we describe a variety of types of capacity-building planned change efforts in organizations (cf. Beer and Nohria, 2000) as these emerged and developed from the mid– twentieth century through the turn of the twenty-first century. Second, we explore underlying dualities and tensions and their implications within each of these change efforts. We do so to highlight some hidden dynamics of these approaches and to open up possibilities for their wider and deeper development. Thus, we examine both theories and practices linked with planned change to uncover dichotomies, or dualities, in approaches and tensions among underlying assumptions of these perspectives.

Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2004

Management paradoxes: A relational view

Article

Jan 2002

Paradox is gaining more and more pervasiveness in and around organizations, thus increasing the need for an approach to management that allows both researchers and practitioners to address these paradoxes. We attempt to contribute to this project by suggesting a relational approach to paradoxes. To this aim, we first present the state of the art of research on management paradoxes and then explain four regularities surfaced in the literature on this topic. We conclude by arguing that taking these regularities as a whole allows us to suggest a new perspective on paradoxes - one with a positive regard for the co-presence of opposites but that takes seriously the potential relationship between these.

1 Constitutional Amendments: “Materializing” Organizational Communication

Article

Jan 2009

This essay aims to “materialize” organizational communication in three senses. First, we seek to make the field of study bearing this name more tangible for North American management scholars, such that recognition and engagement become common. To do so, we trace the development of the field’s major contribution thus far: the communication‐as‐constitutive principle, which highlights how communication generates defining realities of organizational life, such as culture, power, networks, and the structure–agency relation. Second, we argue that this promising contribution cannot easily find traction in management studies until it becomes “materialized” in another sense: that is, accountable to the materiality evident in organizational objects, sites, and bodies. By synthesizing current moves in this direction, we establish the basis for sustained exchange between management studies and the communication‐as‐constitutive model. Third, we demonstrate how these conceptual developments can “materialize” in empirical study, proposing three streams of research designed to examine communication as a central organizing process that manages the intersection of symbolic and material worlds.

The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations

Article

Aug 2001

Continuous “Morphing”: Competing Through Dynamic Capabilities, Form, and Function

Article

Dec 2001

The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity

Article

Apr 2004

Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager Sensemaking

Article

Aug 2004

A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management

Chapter

Feb 2008

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the development of the idea of "stakeholder management" as it has come to be applied in strategic management. We begin by developing a brief history of the concept. We then suggest that traditionally the stakeholder approach to strategic management has several related characteristics that serve as distinguishing features. We review recent work on stakeholder theory and suggest how stakeholder management has affected the practice of management. We end by suggesting further research questions.

Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise.

Article

Nov 1963

Toward A Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

The State and Higher Educational Change

Das makroökonometrische Modell des IWH: Eine angebotsseitige Betrachtung

Keynesian Economics and General Equilibrium Theory: Reflections on Some Current Debates

General Equilibrium Theory — An Empirical Theory?