Advertisement

The Foundation: A New Perspective on Management in Complexity

  • Jan Heiberg Johansen
Chapter

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.

Keywords

The foundation of organizational paradox theory The pioneers of paradox management Contradictions Tensions Paradoxes unite theory positions 

Bibliography

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. (1982). The Executive Mind and Double-Loop Learning. Organizational Dynamics, 11(2), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnes, L. B. (1981). Managing the Paradox of Organizational Trust. Harvard Business Review, 59(2), 107–116.Google Scholar
  6. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of the Mind. New York, NY: Ballentine Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York, NY: Dutton.Google Scholar
  8. Benson, J. K. (1973). The Analysis of Bureaucratic-Professional Conflict: Functional Versus Dialectical Approaches. Sociological Quarterly, 14(3), 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A Dialectical View. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bisel, R. S. (2009). On a Growing Dualism in Organizational Discourse Research. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(4), 614–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cameron, K. (1986). Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, M. J. (2014). Presidential Address – Becoming Ambicultural: A Personal Quest, and Aspiration for Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, M.-J. (2002). Transcending Paradox: The Chinese ‘Middle Way’ Perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19, 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the Competition–Cooperation Relationship: A Transparadox Perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management Paradoxes: A Relational View. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. New York: Random House Books.Google Scholar
  21. Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: Harper-Business.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Deetz, S. (1996). Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Drummond, H. (1998). Is Escalation Always Irrational? Organization Studies, 19(6), 911–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fang, T. (2012). Yin Yang: A New Perspective on Culture. Management and Organization Review, 8(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202–225.Google Scholar
  32. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Heydebrand, W. (1977). Organizational Contradictions in Public Bureaucracies: Toward a Marxian Theory of Organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 18(1), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson, W. A. (1999). Dualism, Duality and the Complexity of Economic Institutions. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(4), 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jian, G. (2007). Unpacking Unintended Consequences in Planned Organizational Change: A Process Model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational Paradoxes: Clinical Approaches to Management. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Kozica, A., & Brandl, J. (2015). Handling Paradoxical Tensions through Conventions: The Case of Performance Appraisal. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 29(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
  40. Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory Approaches and Paradoxes in Managing Telecommuting Implementation. Human Relations, 62(6), 795–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis, M. W., & Kelemen, M. L. (2002). Multiparadigm Inquiry: Exploring Organizational Pluralism and Paradox. Human Relations, 55(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li, P. P. (2014). The Unique Value of Yin-Yang Balancing: A Critical Response. Management and Organization Review, 10(02), 321–332.Google Scholar
  44. Li, X. (2014). Can Yin-Yang Guide Chinese Indigenous Management Research? Management and Organization Review, 10(01), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Łukowski, P. (2011). Paradoxes (Vol. 31). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mason, R. O. (1969). A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning. Management Science, 15(8), 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitroff, I. I., Emshoff, J. R., & Kilmann, R. H. (1979). Assumptional Analysis: A Methodology for Strategic Problem Solving. Management Science, 25(6), 583–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996a). Calendars and Keys: The Classification of “Home” and “Work”. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 563–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996b). Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Putnam, L. L. (2013). Primary and Secondary Contradictions: A Literature Review and Future Directions. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 623–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Putnam, L. L. (2015). Unpacking the Dialectic: Alternative Views on the Discourse-Materiality Relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 52(5), 706–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. (1983). Organizational Life Cycles and Shifting Criteria of Effectiveness: Some Preliminary Evidence. Management Science, 29(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). Operationalizing the Competing Values Approach: Measuring Performance in the Employment Service. Public Productivity Review, 5, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schneider, L. (1971). Dialectic in Sociology. American Sociological Review, 36(4), 667–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smarandache, F. (2010). Paradoxism’s Manifestos and International Folklore. Glendale: Kappa & Omega.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic Decision Making: A Model of Senior Leaders Managing Strategic Paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Tse, T. (2013). Paradox Resolution: A Means to Achieve Strategic Innovation. European Management Journal, 31(6), 682–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wagner, J. A. (1978). The Organizational Double Bind: Toward an Understanding of Rationality and Its Complement. Academy of Management Review, 3(4), 786–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Redding, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  78. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  79. Wieland, S. M. B. (2010). Ideal Selves as Resources for the Situated Practice of Identity. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(4), 503–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wood, J. T., & Conrad, C. (1983). Paradox in the Experiences of Professional Women. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(4), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational Dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Heiberg Johansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ScholarCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations