Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Foundation: A New Perspective on Management in Complexity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Paradox Management

  • 701 Accesses

Abstract

Forty years ago, the pioneers of paradox management initiated a series of events leading to the development of organizational paradoxes as a new perspective on organizations. It gradually changes management practice to see organizations through a paradox lens.

A number of theoretical positions emerge when investigating the early paradox literature. These positions on organizational paradox are generally united in the view that organizations are characterized by contradictions and paradoxes and that organizational actors discover paradoxes as cognitive and emotional tensions. They differ in their view on how contradictions are and throughout history have been embedded in organizations. The three areas, the emergence of the concept of paradox in organizational theory, the contradictions, and the tensions, form the chapter’s structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bibliography

  • Apker, J., Propp, K. M., & Zabava Ford, W. S. (2005). Negotiating Status and Identity Tensions in Healthcare Team Interactions: An Exploration of Nurse Role Dialectics. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(2), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1982). The Executive Mind and Double-Loop Learning. Organizational Dynamics, 11(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Developing Tension: An Agenda for Applied Research on the Organization of Irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, L. B. (1981). Managing the Paradox of Organizational Trust. Harvard Business Review, 59(2), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of the Mind. New York, NY: Ballentine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York, NY: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. K. (1973). The Analysis of Bureaucratic-Professional Conflict: Functional Versus Dialectical Approaches. Sociological Quarterly, 14(3), 376–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A Dialectical View. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. K. (1983). A Dialectical Method for the Study of Organizations. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research (pp. 331–346). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisel, R. S. (2009). On a Growing Dualism in Organizational Discourse Research. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(4), 614–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping with Paradox: Multistakeholder Learning Dialogue as a Pluralist Sensemaking Process for Addressing Messy Problems. Business & Society, 42(1), 7–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. (1986). Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. J. (2014). Presidential Address – Becoming Ambicultural: A Personal Quest, and Aspiration for Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending Paradox: The Chinese ‘Middle Way’ Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the Competition–Cooperation Relationship: A Transparadox Perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management Paradoxes: A Relational View. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Random House Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: Harper-Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosier, R. A., & Aplin, J. C. (1980). A Critical View of Dialectical Inquiry as a Tool in Strategic Planning. Strategic Management Journal, 1(4), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosier, R. A., Ruble, T. L., & Aplin, J. C. (1978). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Dialectical Inquiry Systems. Management Science, 24(14), 1483–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., & Vaccaro, A. (2014). Organizations as Human Communities and Internal Markets: Searching for Duality. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 441–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. (1996). Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond, H. (1998). Is Escalation Always Irrational? Organization Studies, 19(6), 911–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional Logics and Institutional Pluralism: The Contestation of Care and Science Logics in Medical Education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive Manifestations of Contradictions in Organizational Change Efforts: A Methodological Framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., & Schad, J. (2016). Diverging and Converging: Integrative Insights on a Paradox Meta-Perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydebrand, W. (1977). Organizational Contradictions in Public Bureaucracies: Toward a Marxian Theory of Organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 18(1), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, W. A. (1999). Dualism, Duality and the Complexity of Economic Institutions. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(4), 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (1999). The World in Two and a Third Way Out? The Concept of Duality in Organization Theory and Practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(2), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. A., & Le, J. K. (2016). We Have to Do This and That? You Must Be Joking: Constructing and Responding to Paradox Through Humor. Organization Studies, 38, 433–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jian, G. (2007). Unpacking Unintended Consequences in Planned Organizational Change: A Process Model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational Paradoxes: Clinical Approaches to Management. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozica, A., & Brandl, J. (2015). Handling Paradoxical Tensions through Conventions: The Case of Performance Appraisal. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 29(1), 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory Approaches and Paradoxes in Managing Telecommuting Implementation. Human Relations, 62(6), 795–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., & Kelemen, M. L. (2002). Multiparadigm Inquiry: Exploring Organizational Pluralism and Paradox. Human Relations, 55(2), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. P. (2014). The Unique Value of Yin-Yang Balancing: A Critical Response. Management and Organization Review, 10(02), 321–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. (2014). Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research? Management and Organization Review, 10(01), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Łukowski, P. (2011). Paradoxes (Vol. 31). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. O. (1969). A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning. Management Science, 15(8), 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, T. (2006). ‘Paradoxing the Dialectic’: The Impact of Patients’ Sexual Harassment in the Discursive Construction of Nurses’ Caregiving Roles. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 416–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. I., Emshoff, J. R., & Kilmann, R. H. (1979). Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving. Management Science, 25(6), 583–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996a). Calendars and Keys: The Classification of “Home” and “Work”. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 563–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996b). Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (2013). Primary and Secondary Contradictions: A Literature Review and Future Directions. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 623–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (2015). Unpacking the Dialectic: Alternative Views on the Discourse-Materiality Relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 706–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The Coopetition Paradox and Tension in Coopetition at Multiple Levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, L., Rothman, N. B., Lehavy, R., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2013). The Ambivalent Mind Can Be a Wise Mind: Emotional Ambivalence Increases Judgment Accuracy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 360–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). Operationalizing the Competing Values Approach: Measuring Performance in the Employment Service. Public Productivity Review, 5, 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, L. (1971). Dialectic in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 36(4), 667–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Effects of Planning Aids and Presentation Media on Performance and Affective Responses in Strategic Decision-Making. Management Science, 30(3), 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, C. R. (1989). Research Notes and Communications a Meta-Analysis on the Comparative Effectiveness of Devil’s Advocacy and Dialectical Inquiry. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 303–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (2016). Knots in the Discourse of Innovation: Investigating Multiple Tensions in a Reacquired Spin-Off. Organization Studies, 38, 463–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smarandache, F. (2010). Paradoxism’s Manifestos and International Folklore. Glendale: Kappa & Omega.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., Jarzabkowski, P., & Langley, A. (2017). Introduction: The Paradoxes of Paradox. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Surman, E. (2002). Dialectics of Dualism: The Symbolic Importance of the Home/Work Divide. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 2(3), 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, T. (2013). Paradox Resolution: A Means to Achieve Strategic Innovation. European Management Journal, 31(6), 682–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Cunha, M. (2017). On Organizational Circularity: Vicious and Virtuous Circles in Organizing. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2017). Critical Management Studies and Paradox. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (p. 17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, Defense and Attachment: Accessing and Working with Emotions and Relations Underlying Organizational Change. Organization Studies, 17(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. A. (1978). The Organizational Double Bind: Toward an Understanding of Rationality and Its Complement. Academy of Management Review, 3(4), 786–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York, NY: WW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Redding, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, S. M. B. (2010). Ideal Selves as Resources for the Situated Practice of Identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 503–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. T., & Conrad, C. (1983). Paradox in the Experiences of Professional Women. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(4), 305–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational Dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Scholar, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Jan Heiberg Johansen

Authors
  1. Jan Heiberg Johansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Heiberg Johansen, J. (2019). The Foundation: A New Perspective on Management in Complexity. In: Paradox Management. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94815-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation