Search results

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

This paper comments on “Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the east” (Li, 2016), which provides an indigenous Chinese perspective on organizational paradox. Li introduces Yin-Yang balancing as an epistemological system that can help scholars examine and practitioners manage paradoxes. In this commentary, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the merits of Yin-Yang balancing and how this approach and other indigenous theories might enrich organizational paradox theory.

The authors provide a commentary and suggestions for future research. The authors distinguish between Yin-Yang balancing as a normative theory, a meta-theory and a lay theory. The authors encourage both geocentrism and polycentrism as goals for future paradox research, enabling attention to the diversity of ideas across and within varied cultures.

The commentary connects Yin-Ying balancing with extant research on organizational paradox.

Why is it that highly trained and seasoned executives fail? On the surface, this doesn’t make sense because they are very successful; yet research in the organization sciences provides no shortage of evidence to prove just that. From the classic Mann Gulch fire disaster of Weick’s famous collapse of sensemaking study, to studies of myopia of learning, escalation of commitment, threat-rigidity, dominant logic, the architecture of simplicity, the Icarus Paradox, to core competencies turning into core rigidities, and navigating new competitive markets using “old” cognitive maps, and many more such examples point to a ubiquitous phenomenon where highly trained and experienced professionals find themselves “stuck” in the heat of battle, unable to move and progress. On the one hand, for some, there is a desperate need for change, but are unable to do so, due to their trained incapacities. On the other hand, some simply cannot see the need for change, and continue with their “business as usual” mentality. For both, their visions of the world shrink, they have a tendency to cling onto their past habitual practices and oversimplify the complexity of the situation. In moments like these: DROP YOUR TOOLS and UNLEARN! This book chapter introduces a framework (grounded in clinical psychology) that has had consistent success in helping seasoned executives and key decision-makers open up the alternatives whenever they find themselves stuck with complexity.

The way organizational actors use language to think about and communicate their organizational experiences is central to how organizational actors enact organizational paradox. However, most inquiries into the role of language in the organizational paradox literature has focused on specific components of language (e.g., discourse), without attention to the complex, multi-level linguistic system that is interconnected to organizational processes. In this chapter, we expand our knowledge of the role of language by integrating paradox research with research from the linguistics discipline. We identify a series of linguistic tensions (i.e., generalizability-specificity, universalism-particularism, and explicitness-implicitness) that are nested within organizational paradoxes. In the process, we reveal how the organizing paradox of control and autonomy is interconnected to other paradoxes (i.e., performing, learning, and belonging) through the instantiation of linguistic paradoxes. We discuss the implications of our findings for research on paradox and language.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how paradox has become a common label for the organizational complexity, ambiguity and equivocality accentuated by change.

As a label, paradox is socially constructed – the product of actors' daily discourses. Applying a constructivist lens and insights from systems theories, the paper explores the nature and dynamics of paradox related to changing organizations. Building from related studies, the paper proposes a framework that details recurring paradoxes, their communicative sources, and their paradoxical interplay. This action research study of the Lego Company provides an integrative example.

Most organizational phenomena that one makes the subject of study are brought out through our own social interactions. Processes and product are two sides of the same coin. Exploring paradoxes often creates circles of reflection. An understanding of paradox does not solve problems, but rather opens new possibilities and sparks circles of even greater complexity.

The paper provides a critique of “resolution”, identifying responses to paradox that may energize change.

In this essay, I draw on the chapters by Fisher et al., Keller and Tian, and Zundel et al. that deal with the role of paradox in the context of jazz, linguistics, mathematics and poetry respectively to reflect on the nature of paradox, also considering examples from my own and other research. I argue specifically, that in everyday language, the notion of paradox is used mostly to refer not so much to persistent tensions between interdependent elements, but to describe an outcome as irony where action intended to achieve one goal actually results in its opposite or in something contrary to it. I suggest that while there may be a relation between the formal definition of paradox in the academic literature and the everyday understanding of paradox as irony, this has not been fully elucidated and would deserve further analysis and research. Doing so might perhaps bring back some of the feeling of discomfort and intractability that the notion of paradox naturally inspires, acting as a possible counterpoint to the optimism of both-and.

The main goal of any organization is to achieve the best quality of work through employees, and managers play a very important role in this field. Managers and leaders of organizations often face with paradoxes that make decision-making difficult. The purpose of this paper is to develop a competency model for human resource managers considering the importance of the role of paradoxes for organizations.

The research methodology is of a mixed type and with an approach based on paradox theory and using theme analysis and fuzzy Delphi, it seeks to provide a model of paradoxical managers’ competence. The statistical sample included 11 experts working in the information and communication technology industry, who were selected using the snowball and judgmental sampling method.

The results of this research show that the competency model of human resource managers has three managerial, organizational and individual levels and has 15 themes including strategic partner, organizational knowledge, awareness of the industry environment, awareness of the external environment, paradoxical thinking, managerial knowledge, relationship management, resource management , leadership, human resources analyzer, information technology (IT) knowledge, personality traits, development, multitasking and cognitive competence. The most important theme identified is paradoxical thinking and familiarity with IT knowledge, and it is suggested that human resource managers working in this field should preferably study technical and engineering fields at the undergraduate level and shift to human resource management fields at the graduate level.

The distinguishing feature of this paper is the presentation of a competency model based on paradox theory. Paradoxes are part of organizational life. Therefore, there should be a paradoxical view in all organizational analysis.

All values are really paradoxes since they are contrasts, like courage–caution, diversity–inclusion and define one another. Values are differences at the end of continua. All metaphors are paradoxical being both like and unlike that to which they refer. Emergency management is a paradox. How can you manage something suddenly emerging like Australian bush fires? It is, however, possible to prepare for a range of events, all infections require masks, social distancing, gowns, disinfectant etc. Many East Asians countries have navigated the current COVID-19 pandemic better than many Western countries by such readiness. The key to resolving paradoxes is dynamic equilibrium, wherein opposed values harmonize and grow ever more salient. All innovation is an exercise in resolving paradox, by creating new wholes out of old and existing parts. These ideas are explored via a commentary of three pieces on paradox in relation to logic, Luhman and emergency management.