Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paradox Tactics: Avoid, Activate, Transcend

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Paradox Management

Abstract

When organizational actors approach paradoxes they consciously or unconsciously apply a number of paradox tactics. It is a descriptive term for the handling of paradoxes. Tactics work together with paradoxes in paradox chains and the concept of paradox tactics only makes sense in relation to paradoxes.

This chapter will look into the “tactical logics” that organizational actors form before examining the three clusters of tactics—avoidance, activation, and transcendence. Tactical logics are patterns in the organizational actors’ response to paradoxes (Smets et al. 2015).

Change in tactical logics can take place via “turning points” that work as transitional fields. The five sections—tactical logics, avoidance, activation, transcendence, and turning points—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
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
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

  • Abdallah, C., Denis, J. L., & Langley, A. (2011). Having Your Cake and Eating It Too: Discourses of Transcendence and Their Role in Organizational Change Dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 333–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical Leadership Studies: The Case for Critical Performativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six Paradoxes in Managing Creativity: An Embracing Act. Long Range Planning, 36(4), 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons from Leading Product Design Companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1), 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., & Reingen, P. H. (2014). Functions of Dysfunction: Managing the Dynamics of an Organizational Duality in a Natural Food Cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J. M., Walsh, K., & Lacey, C. A. (2000). Dynamics and Dilemmas of Women Leading Women. Organization Science, 11(6), 589–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as Invitation to Act in Problematic Change Situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benington, J., & Hartley, J. (2009). Whole Systems Go! Leadership Across the Whole Public Service System. Ascot: National School of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2003). ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage. Organization Science, 14(6), 720–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the Wind: Exploring the Relationships among Ambidexterity, Vacillation, and Organizational Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 587–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, D., & Larson, G. S. (2006). Locating Possibilities for Control and Resistance in a Self-Help Program. Western Journal of Communication, 70(4), 270–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmeli, A., & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How Top Management Team Behavioral Integration and Behavioral Complexity Enable Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Contextual Ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Robey, D. (2007). Dialectics of Resilience: A Multi-Level Analysis of a Telehealth Innovation. Journal of Information Technology, 22(1), 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., & e Cunha, M. P. (2017). Organizational Dialectics. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (p. 105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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 

  • Dean, M., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Physicians’ Perspectives of Managing Tensions around Dimensions of Effective Communication in the Emergency Department. Health Communication, 29(3), 257–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To Be Different, or to Be the Same? It’s a Question (and Theory) of Strategic Balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis, J. L., Lamothe, L., & Langley, A. (2001). The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 809–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership. Organizational Science, 6(5), 524–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, S. (2010). Authority and Autonomy. Doctoral thesis, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erhardt, N., & Gibbs, J. L. (2014). The Dialectical Nature of Impression Management in Knowledge Work: Unpacking Tensions in Media Use between Managers and Subordinates. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-Historical Activity Theory as Practice Theory: Illuminating the Development of Conflict-Monitoring Network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering Team Innovation: Why Is It Important to Combine Opposing Action Strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a Global Software Team: Negotiating Tensions across Time, Space, and Culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A. (2000). When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict over Organizational Identity within a Symphony Orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2009). Duality Theory and Organizing Forms in Change Management. Journal of Change Management, 9(1), 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies between Formal and Informal Organization. Organization Science, 20(2), 422–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive Frames in Corporate Sustainability: Managerial Sensemaking with Paradoxical and Business Case Frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Quinn, R. E. (1993). Roles Executives Play: CEOs, Behavioral Complexity, and Firm Performance. Human Relations, 46(5), 543–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heiberg Johansen, J. (2015). Frontline Paradox Tactics. MBA dissertation, Henley Business School – University of Reading.

    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 

  • Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project Work: The Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-Bureaucratic Organization. Organization, 11(1), 81–100.

    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., Le, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to Competing Strategic Demands: How Organizing, Belonging, and Performing Paradoxes Coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245–280.

    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 

  • Jay, J. (2013). Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.

    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 

  • Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the Beat–Rhythms of Change and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 160–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical and Deindividualized Leadership in Extreme Action Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and Exploitation within and across Organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.

    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., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., & Dehler, G. E. (2000). Learning through Paradox: A Pedagogical Strategy for Exploring Contradictions and Complexity. Journal of Management Education, 24(6), 708–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, B. C., Hall, W. A., Bermbach, N., Jordan, S., & Patterson, K. (2008). Gauging Visibility: How Female Clerical Workers Manage Work-Related Distress. Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1413–1428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, O. H. (2009). Kitchen Antics: The Importance of Humor and Maintaining Professionalism at Work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(4), 444–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majgaard, K. (2014). Jagten på autenticitet i offentlig styring. Phd dissertation, Copenhagen Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majgaard, K. (2017). Handlekraft i velfærdsledelse. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. M. (2004). Humor in Middle Management: Women Negotiating the Paradoxes of Organizational Life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2007). The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity through Conflict and Integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musson, G., & Duberley, J. (2007). Change, Change or Be Exchanged: The Discourse of Participation and the Manufacture of Identity. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). Stretchwork: Managing the Career Progression Paradox in External Labor Markets. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 918–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patil, S. V., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Punctuated Incongruity: A New Approach to Managing Trade-Offs between Conformity and Deviation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 155–171.

    Article  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., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse Analysis in Organizations: Issues and Concerns. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods (pp. 78–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    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 

  • Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the Tensions in Workplace Flexibility and Exploring Options for New Directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413–440.

    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 

  • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Crossroads—Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. W., & Trethewey, A. (2008). Organizational Discourse and the Appraisal of Occupational Hazards: Interpretive Repertoires, Heedful Interrelating, and Identity at Work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 298–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seal, W., & Ball, A. (2011). Interpreting the Dynamics of Public Sector Budgeting: A Dialectic of Control Approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 27(4), 409–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and Tensions in Planned Organizational Change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 73–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance Trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing Conflicting-yet-Complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.

    Article  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., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs: Challenges, Leadership Skills, and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and Commercial Demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. (2006). Value Conflict and Policy Change. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, Contradiction, or Double Bind? Analyzing and Theorizing Employee Reactions to Organizational Tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119–146.

    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 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organization Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.

    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 

  • Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical Leader Behaviors in People Management: Antecedents and Consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566.

    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). Paradox Tactics: Avoid, Activate, Transcend. In: Paradox Management. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94815-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation