3.1 Paradoxical Roots

Reference Schad, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiSchad (2017) traces the roots of paradox theory to two philosophical traditions – one from ‘the East’ and the other from ‘the West’ – both of which inform normative and prescriptive lenses for studying and dealing with paradoxes (Reference Smith, Lewis, Jarzabkowski and LangleySmith et al., 2017b).

Historically, the Balkans, as the crossroads of the world’s civilizations, played an extremely important role as a source and conduit of ideas. It was here that Aristotle formulated the principles of formal logic, giving rise to an either-or system in which oppositions are fully separated (see Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg, 2021; Reference LiLi, 2016). Reference Ford and FordFord and Ford (1994: 760–1) explicate three axions associated with formal logic as (I) contradiction: that a thing cannot be itself and something else; (II) identity: that a thing is equal to itself; (III) excluded middle, where a thing is one of two mutually exclusive things (e.g., ‘A’ or ‘Not A’) and that thing cannot be both or something in between. These proved to be highly durable foundations for logical thought. Within formal logic, in epistemological traditions in the West, there is an ‘absolute and full separation of opposite elements’ (Reference LiLi, 2016: 46) because they are mutually exclusive (Reference LiLi, 2016). Paradoxes are, therefore, anomalies to be solved by favouring one pole of the tension at the expense of the other. In such a tradition, ‘solving’ the tensions is a sign of efficiency as the tradition cultivates intolerance to a contradiction (Reference Keller, Loewenstein and YanKeller et al., 2017).

Elsewhere, in early nineteenth-century Prussia, other dominant Western thoughts informed by Hegel’s dialectics came to emphasize contradiction and change (see Reference Ford and FordFord and Ford, 1994). Dialectics recognizes gradual, evolutionary and revolutionary leaps. Dialectically, an entity can be seen as a unity of opposites, meaning a thing can be both A and Not-A (Reference Ford and FordFord and Ford, 1994: 762). Change can occur through the negation of the previous form, where one opposite supersedes the other. In dialectics, paradoxes are tolerated, albeit temporarily or separated (temporarily and spatially) but eventually rejected.

The classic case of this is Marx’s dialectical view of history in which each stage of development of the modes and relations of production resolves some contradictions from that which preceded it, leading to the dominance of the capitalist mode of production in which the relations between capital and labour would create a revolutionary consciousness among proletarians. That consciousness would see capitalism overthrown and sow the seeds of a teleological future in which contradictions would be overcome. Thus, central to the West-inspired tradition is a persistent tendency to aim at reducing complexity and uncertainty, striving for simplicity and certainty (Reference LiLi, 2016).

In Eastern traditions, paradox is the norm, regarded as acceptable rather than as an irregularity (Reference LiLi, 2016; Reference Schad, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiSchad, 2017). Hence, the traditions embrace complexity and uncertainty (Reference LiLi, 2016: 49) and accommodation of contradiction is embedded (Reference Keller, Loewenstein and YanKeller et al., 2017). Reference Schad, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiSchad (2017: 30–1) recaps key Eastern-based traditions promoting a middle way in which opposition is regarded as empowering.

Although Ubuntu is overlooked in mainstream theorizing, Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg (2021) recently presented it as an Afrocentric view that could inform paradox management, a view that conforms to neither Eastern nor Western orthodoxies. In fulfilling insights ‘across paradigms’ (Reference Schad, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiSchad, 2017: 28), the Afrocentric view complements the Western and Eastern traditions and adds to our repertoire, contributing to our understanding of paradoxes and paradox management. Ubuntu is based on a humanist premise that aims at a high degree of harmony. It is characterized by focussing on the big picture and continuity (Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg, 2021). Most importantly, it is based on ‘otherness’, meaning it ‘puts others at the centre of concern’ (Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg, 2021: 40). Difference and tensions are encouraged, a value in dialogue. Continuity and emphasis on harmony mean the individual and the community are inseparable in that ‘there is no individual without community or community without the individual’ (Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg, 2021: 41). Consensus is sought through striving to reconcile opposing views. See Table 3 for a comparison of the three paradoxical roots.

Different traditions inform both our theorizing and our practice; thus, we argue for exploration of various traditions because differences in history, institutions, cultures, habits and traditions can clarify the relationships between paradoxes and their contexts.

3.2 The Ontology of Paradox

Another issue relevant for our understanding of paradox is ontological traditions. Discussion of ontology refers to the nature of paradox. In the literature, scholars take two competing views on whether paradoxes are inherent or socially constructed (see Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016). Contradictions might emerge from the plurality of logics, objectives and meanings. Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis (2011) argue that paradoxes are both inherent and socially constructed. They contend that paradoxes exist within a system and are socially constructed through actors’ cognition or rhetoric. They propose that paradoxes, ‘opposing yet interrelated dualities[,] are embedded in the process of organizing and are brought into juxtaposition via environmental conditions. In this way, we focus on forces that render latent tensions salient to organizational actors’ (Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011: 388).

So the question of whether paradoxes exist out there or if they become salient only through social construction is not conclusively answered (Reference Schad and BansalSchad and Bansal, 2018). Answering such a question and the clarity that comes with it is relevant to theory development, according to Reference Hahn and KnightHahn and Knight (2021: 363), because ‘it guides important questions regarding the ubiquity of paradox in organizational life, when organizational actors experience paradoxes, and the appropriate way to conceptualize management responses’ (Reference Hahn and KnightHahn and Knight, 2021: 364). In this section, we present the two major explanations – paradox as inherent to the real and paradox as socially constructed – as well as the emerging bridging views.

3.3 Latency and Salience of Paradoxes

As highlighted earlier in this Element, central to the theorizing of paradox is its ontology – that is, is paradox inherent in organizational systems or do organization members construct a situation as paradoxical in their representation and sense-making? In practice, the question is whether paradoxes are latent or salient.

Latency and saliency are two important topics in the paradox literature. Not all paradoxes are visible (Reference TuckermannTuckermann, 2019) or salient to all actors (Reference Knight and ParoutisKnight and Paroutis, 2017). Tensions that are embedded in organizations (e.g., between exploration and exploitation or between integration and differentiation) may well remain latent (Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011). Untriggered, their dormancy awaits detection (Reference TuckermannTuckermann, 2019); hence, their recognition cannot be taken for granted (Reference Knight and ParoutisKnight and Paroutis, 2017).

While there is consensus around the idea, initially introduced by Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis (2011), that tensions inherent to organizing are persistent but that their saliency is situational, views diverge around the process that triggers saliency. Some accounts privilege ‘exogenous’ factors such as environmental conditions of change and resource scarcity (Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011) and/or the presence of particular mindsets and cognitive frames (Reference Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith and LewisMiron-Spektor et al., 2018; Reference Smith and TushmanSmith and Tushman, 2005). Others highlight endogenous factors such as leadership decisions aimed at making middle managers aware of the necessity to reconcile contradictory requirements (Reference Knight and ParoutisKnight and Paroutis, 2017) while still other views focus on processes through which contradictions are continuously made visible and invisible, enabling organized action (Reference TuckermannTuckermann, 2019).

There are different views also in relation to the stability of the outcomes of this surfacing of paradoxes. Some accounts suggest that once detected or socially constructed, paradoxes remain salient (Reference Jarzabkowski, Lê and Van de VenJarzabkowski et al., 2013; Reference Jay.Jay, 2013; Reference Lüscher and LewisLüscher and Lewis, 2008). Other sources propose a more dynamic picture. According to Reference Sitkin, See and MillerSmith and Lewis’ model (2011), effective coping can stimulate innovation but also render the tension less salient. Analogously, Reference TuckermannTuckermann (2019) argues, in line with Reference LuhmannLuhmann’s (1995) view, that by alternatively making paradoxes visible and invisible, the organization can avoid paralysis.

Central to the discussion of latency and saliency is that paradoxes might be latent for some while salient for others across a hierarchy. Given their position, managers might see paradox at a higher level while organizational actors are entrenched in their own demands. In addition, the level of salience could also be different because organizational actors might experience the tension of the same paradox differently (see the discussion on intensity in Section 4.3).

3.4 Framing Competing Demands

Once salient, how the tension that constitutes competing demands is framed dictates how it is responded to. Framing is the process by which a phenomenon becomes defined as such and such a type of issue because of the way that it is seen through a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives that delineate what is taken as reality. For instance, the ways in which competing demands are framed implies assumptions about the relationships between these demands – for example, whether they are oppositional, interdependent (Reference ChenChen, 2002) or both.

Moreover, different types of framing produce diverse options for organization members’ sense-making. So, when the tensions resulting from competing demands become salient, because of either individuals’ cognition or materially real factors, how organization members socially construct and make sense of them will vary. Sense-making, in general, is understood as making something sensible (Reference Sandberg and TsoukasSandberg and Tsoukas, 2015), and it involves emotional, cognitive and behavioural elements. The cognitive dimension consists of those stable constructs that structure members’ categorization devices (Reference SacksSacks, 1972), providing a lens through which to understand a situation.

Once organizational members face the tension, they draw on typical patterns of cognition, implicit assumptions and prior experience (Reference Miron-Spektor, Gino and ArgoteMiron-Spektor et al., 2011b) to frame it in a way that structures and bounds experience (Reference Bartunek, Quinn and CameronBartunek, 1988) as an ‘either-or’ choice or two legitimate demands that should be accommodated based on ‘both-and’ thinking, for example. Cognition is, however, just a piece of the puzzle. Organization members also experience different emotions when faced with competing demands. For some, the tension can arouse anxiety and discomfort; others might feel energized as they work through the tension (Reference Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt and PradiesAshforth et al., 2014; Reference Beech, Burns and CaesteckerBeech et al., 2004). These emotional and cognitive dimensions are manifested in and direct organization members’ actions (Reference Denison, Hooijberg and QuinnDenison, Hooijberg and Quinn, 1995). As organization members frame competing demands, the emotional, cognitive and behavioural elements are intertwined even though they are presented separately. One cannot be separated from the other, but rather they overlap and interact in the form of a vortex (Reference Coget and KellerCoget and Keller, 2010; Reference GaimGaim, 2017).

In the classical theoretical literatures on organization, which ‘describe correlations between stable entities’ (Reference Hernes and BakkenHernes and Bakken, 2003: 1517), competing requirements will be dealt with in terms of a decision as to which option is the best to prioritize at the expense of the other, aiming to identify the ‘one best way’ to optimize the desired outcome. While ‘one best way approaches’ have declined in influence with the passage of scientific management (Reference TaylorTaylor, 1911) into intellectually being a historical curiosity (if not practically), the idea lingered on with the notion of ‘contingent best ways’ to organize, depending on context (Reference DonaldsonDonaldson, 1987). More recently, recognition of the increased complexity and fast-changing nature of context has led many theoreticians to foreground organizing processes rather than reify them into structures whose lack of liquidity becomes problematic when change is to be explained (Reference WeickWeick, 1979). Processually, the framing of organizations as becoming, with their structure constantly reproduced (Reference Clegg, Kornberger and RhodesClegg et al., 2005; Reference Stephenson, Kuismin and PutnamStephenson et al., 2020), is also undergoing change. Framed in this alternative epistemological perspective, both the manifestation and the treatment of competing demands (as a paradox or not) assume a different meaning. These alternative forms of making sense of competing demands and the associated tensions can be enacted in different ways.

When competing demands are framed as dilemmas, they become problems to be solved (Reference LiLi, 2016: 47). Such a situation becomes manifest as an either-or choice, one in which an alternative must be selected at the expense of the other, in a win-lose situation (Reference Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt and PradiesAshforth et al., 2014). Dilemmas pose incompatibility between competing demands that necessitate choice as a response (Reference Janssens and SteyaertJanssens and Steyaert, 1999; Reference WestenholzWestenholz, 1993). When choices are made, the tension is considered resolved for once and for all.

Framing competing demands as trade-offs stresses their opposition, implying that any gain in relation to one demand requires a sacrifice in relation to the other (Reference Byggeth and HochschornerByggeth and Hochschorner, 2006; Reference Gaim and WåhlinGaim and Wåhlin, 2016). However, in this case, the outcome is not binary: it is possible to find a balance between the conflicting but interdependent functional demands (Reference GarlandGarland, 2014). Trade-offs can be considered as ‘more or less’ compromises, where responses must partially attend to one demand at the expense of the other, with a moderate focus on either demand (Reference Achtenhagen, Melin, Pettigrew, Whittington and MelinAchtenhagen and Melin, 2003; Reference Ashforth, Rogers, Pratt and PradiesAshforth et al., 2014). Thus, trade-offs imply that more of one means less of the other, forcing organizational actors to settle for a compromise. When tensions are framed as trade-offs, actors predominantly see their conflictual nature, not their interdependence and the energy their intersection can generate.

In cases of dilemmas and trade-offs, organizational actors tend to close off tensions and resolve contradictions. Hence, they might miss the possibility of embracing, engaging and accepting both sides simultaneously. Thus, while both dilemma and trade-off picture a static reality, a dialectical perspective (Reference BensonBenson, 1977; Reference Clegg, Cunha, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiClegg and Cunha, 2017; Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016) frames oppositions as engines of transformation. The pattern assumes an initial thesis, followed by its antithesis; the dialectic is then resolved through their synthesis (Reference Poole and Van de VenPoole and Van de Ven, 1989; Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011), which becomes a further thesis, and so on. The synthesis incorporates elements of the two contrasting positions but is neither a resolution nor a harmonious reconciliation. First, once the synthesis is achieved, it will be perceived as a new thesis likely to provoke its antithesis and reignite the dialectical cycle (Reference Clegg, Cunha, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiClegg and Cunha, 2017). Second, dialectics highlights the role of resistance and change through conflict (Reference Hargrave and Van de VenHargrave and Van de Ven, 2017): depending on power balance, thesis and antithesis will combine differently (even if both are likely to leave a trace in the synthesis).

When competing demands are framed as paradoxes, they are seen as dualities, opposites that coexist, as necessary elements of a unified whole (Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011). For this reason, they are persistent and cannot be ‘resolved’; despite their opposition, they are interdependent (Reference Schad, Lewis and RaischSchad et al., 2016; Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011). When these contradictory elements are constituted as equally important in day-to-day work, organizational actors frequently experience acute tensions in engaging with these contradictions (Reference Cunha, Clegg, Cunha and CleggCunha et al., 2002; Reference Gaim, Wåhlin and CunhaGaim et al., 2018). When framed as paradoxes, the competing demands are seen as contradictory and interdependent and the resulting tension is persistent, not resolved.

Thus, when we frame a process, we decide what to see and what not to see. Moreover, our framing informs our response, meaning how we deal with a tension depends on how we frame it and the language or metaphor we use to represent it. When framing competing demands, conceptual clarity is important because framing is associated with how tensions are interpreted. Moreover, conceptual clarity makes the connection between framing and responses clearer (Reference Gaim, Wåhlin and CunhaGaim et al., 2018). Given the complex and changing nature of organizations and organizing, competing demands will be framed differently across time and space. Thus, conceptual clarity allows organizational actors to ‘recognize the consequences of shifts in their practical consciousness when iterating between dilemma and paradox or between dilemma and duality, for instance’ (Reference Gaim, Wåhlin and CunhaGaim et al., 2018: 11) and to recognize different framing of competing demands and their implications. If aware of the different framing, organizational actors can deliberately examine transitions or iterations among different forms and how they are treated.

For researchers, conceptual clarity helps to study patterns between different framings and responses and why and how such changes occur, answering questions such as: Why do actors change their framing? At what point? What was the trigger? How does their sense-making shift? Doing so will open a space for process-oriented longitudinal studies in different contexts.

4.1 Approaching Paradoxes

Individuals arguably prefer consistent outcomes (Reference MartinMartin, 2007) because their cognitive dispositions induce them to seek certainty or simplify a complex reality (Reference Bartunek, Quinn and CameronBartunek, 1988). When faced with competing demands, conventionally, individuals’ tendency has been to choose between options by framing the choice as an ‘either/or’ decision (Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016). Either-or approaches presume a reified state of consciousness in which choices between phenomena are seen as absolute, determinate and objective. Less conventionally, organizational members are seen to seek to engage both demands simultaneously, based on the ‘both-and’ approach (Reference Gaim and WåhlinGaim and Wåhlin, 2016; Reference Miron-Spektor, Erez and NavehMiron-Spektor et al., 2011a).

The both-and approach is attuned to the positive social construction of reality in regarding consciousness as a process of constructing, deconstructing and reconstructing meaning, not as confronting reified objectification. Reality is constructed through those creating it engaging with the flow of events and being in a world in which events happen whose fundamental unknowability is always open to surprise. Processual and positive approaches to paradox are premised on being in the flow of consciousness and construction. These approaches do not treat meaning as subject to a choice of either one side of an objectified dualism or another, risking reifying one horn of the dilemma while neglecting the other.

The literature on paradoxes (details in Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016; Reference Schad, Lewis and RaischSchad et al., 2016) covers two dominant (i.e., either-or and both-and) and one emerging approach (i.e., more-than). In the either-or approach, paradoxes are resolved by fully separating opposites whose differences are accentuated. Approaches – as they are tied to how organization members respond – are important because organizational members’ perceptions often obscure the relatedness of the options that paradoxes elicit (Reference LewisLewis, 2000). Similarly, Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg (1987: 208) argue, ‘it is important to keep in mind that survival and growth in a world of contradiction involve not only the experience of a paradox but the various ways of thinking about the paradox that enables us to tolerate or manage contradiction and conflict’. Furthermore, Reference Cameron and QuinnCameron and Quinn (1988) note that organization members often impose an either-or approach in treating tensions as dilemmas that could more fruitfully be approached from a both-and approach.

From an either-or perspective, paradox is typically seen as problematic when contradictory poles are regarded as distinct phenomena that function independently of each other (Reference LewisLewis, 2000). Framing things in this way means that choice must be for either one or the other option. The upshot of paradox being treated as either-or is that once a pole is opted for, actors become defensive in protecting and rationalizing their choice and the other pole is neglected.

By contrast to the either-or approach, a both-and approach enables organization members to recognize and become comfortable with, even profit from, paradoxical experience. Through a both-and approach, organization members develop cognitive capability and emotional orientation to accommodate contradictions simultaneously, by zigzagging, by shrinking and stretching, or by integration (Reference Ashforth and ReingenAshforth and Reingen, 2014; Reference Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith and LewisMiron-Spektor et al., 2018; Reference RosalesRosales et al., 2022). Typically, this leads to an active engagement with both poles, juggling them and ways of dealing with them in balance.

The more-than approach is an extension of the both-and approach. In this approach, competing demands are not merely accommodated, but there is an active search for novel solutions based on creative synergy. The distinction from both-and is that while in both-and there might be a balance of competing demands of social and commercial demands, for example, their relationship is not fundamentally altered in a novel way. According to Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam and colleagues (2016), more-than responses connect oppositional pairs that make up the paradox, moving outside of them or situating them in a new relationship. The early phases of the construction of the Sydney Opera House epitomize such a dynamic where members holding contradictory interests appreciated the importance of ‘others’, which gave rise to ‘a collaborative expansion in which members abandon polarity and instead experimentally examine ways of embracing both in their pursuit of the aesthetic moment’ (see Reference Gaim, Clegg and CunhaGaim et al., 2022). In the both-and and more-than approaches, experiencing paradox is seen as a generative process, a source of energy, in which poles that are paradoxical become accommodated through developing novel and creative synergy (Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016). The process is dialectical, moving from thesis→ antithesis→synthesis in a constant flow of becoming, generating new insights and transformations.

We have now established that how organizational members respond (e.g., actively or defensively) to paradoxes depends on how paradoxes are approached (Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016). The relationship between approach and response is not necessarily linear. Certain approaches may not necessarily result in a corresponding response; nonetheless, we can argue that, under normal circumstances, approaches are tied to how organizational members respond (Reference MartinMartin, 2007). We have summarized how the approaches are tied to responses in Table 4; the movement from defensive to active portrays the increasing sophistication in the way tensions are responded to from simple choice to engaging both simultaneously.

4.2 Repertoire of Responses to Paradoxes

As shown in Table 4, there is a range of responses within the different approaches. Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg (1987) have produced fundamental work cataloguing a repertoire of group responses to paradoxes. In their work on group life, the authors highlight the fact that individuals experience ambivalence stemming from the simultaneous wish to be both ‘a part’ of the group and ‘apart’ from the group. First, this occurs when a group responds to paradox by resisting or by being unwilling fully to explore painful and distressing aspects of their experience of paradoxes (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987: 211–12), often leading to them seeking a middle ground to make the contradiction seemingly disappear (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987: 212). Second, organization members might attempt to eliminate the contradiction through a competitive instinct, pitting members’ opposing reactions to it against each other to see which proves stronger or more powerful (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987: 212). Third, organization members might overlook contradictory elements by failing to recognize the contradiction by seeking consensus through ‘putting aside’ polarizing differences (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987: 213–14). The attempt to compromise, eliminate and overlook, however, can lead to ‘stuckedness’ (Reference VignehsaVignehsa, 2014), what Reference HageHage (2009) refers to as a form of existential immobility, the condition now popularly known as Groundhog Day syndrome. Being in a state of stuckedness keeps members from creating a framework for understanding how their actions prevent productive movement (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987: 210).

Alternatively, Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg (1987) noted that organization members might engage in movement. Movement results from having the emotional and intellectual engagement to discover how linking oppositional poles can release energy essential for group development. Achieving this sense of movement, doing something, requires immersion in and exploration of polarities and reclaiming emotions and reactions that have been split off by making a choice that involves focussing on either one pole or the other (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987). Reclaiming requires reintegrating opposing or contradictory reactions, acknowledging contradictions rather than eliminating them. Acceptance of contradiction is a necessary but insufficient step; movement necessitates immersion in and exploration of the polarities to enable reframing their relationship. Such reframing brings with it new ways of looking at the opposition (Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg, 1987: 218).

In another foundational study of the paradox of change processes and organization members’ emotions, Reference Vince and BroussineVince and Broussine (1996) identified defence mechanisms. Repression denotes blocking unpleasant experiences from memory; regression refers to resorting to action that previously provided some security; projection means transferring personal shortcomings to others; reaction formation is refusing to accept an unpleasant reality (Reference Vince and BroussineVince and Broussine, 1996: 5). Based on both Reference Smith and BergSmith and Berg (1987) and Reference Vince and BroussineVince and Broussine (1996), Reference LewisLewis’ (2000) seminal work recapitulates the repertoire of responses into paradoxes. In attempting resolution, organization members reduce frustration and discomfort, which initially produces a positive effect. However, Reference LewisLewis (2000: 763) notes the initial positive effect will eventually foster opposite, unintended consequences that intensify the underlying tension. Managing that taps paradoxes’ positive potential may be difficult, as it requires radically rethinking past perceptions and practices. To do so successfully, managers must recognize, become comfortable with, even profit from, tensions and the anxieties they provoke.

Building on these and previous works, Reference Jarzabkowski, Lê and Van de VenJarzabkowski and colleagues (2013) categorize responses to contradictions as either ‘active’ or ‘defensive’. Similarly, Reference SmithLewis and Smith (2014) classify the range of responses as ‘strategic’ or ‘defensive’. Conceptually, categorizing responses as active or strategic as opposed to defensive captures the polar emphasis of short-term and long-term orientations. Active/strategic responses provide organization members with long-term relief and sustainability; the alternative offers temporary fixes. Based on empirical work on paradoxes in telecommunications, Reference Jarzabkowski, Lê and Van de VenJarzabkowski and colleagues (2013) identify specific responses, including suppressing, opposing and adjusting. Suppressing involves overriding one element of the paradox while fostering the other, as one demand is seen as more important than the other. In opposing, unlike suppressing, both demands are deemed important. However, organization members, rather than realizing the demands as interdependent, pit representations of the opposition against each other, forcing one or the other representation to the margins. In adjusting, organization members recognize the opposites as interdependent objectives each of which must be achieved (Reference Jarzabkowski, Lê and Van de VenJarzabkowski et al., 2013: 253–5). Both suppressing and opposing institute salience and latency with respect to the poles of the paradox. The conceptual repertoire of responses has been advanced by Reference Schad, Lewis and RaischSchad and colleagues (2016), who address individual and collective responses to paradox. More recently, Reference Clegg, Cunha, Smith, Lewis and JarzabkowskiClegg and Cunha (2017) have categorized the repertoire of responses to paradoxes based on excluding, separating, integrating and connecting.

These repertoires of responses show the several ways organizational members deal with paradoxes; some lead to positive outcomes while others do not. Some lead to virtuous cycles while others create cycles that are vicious. When organization members seek to resolve paradoxical tension, vicious reinforcing cycles play out; where they capture the enlightening potential of paradoxes, their positive aspects are tapped. Thus, one possible outcome of paradoxes as persistent phenomena is the emergence of cycles or circles.

These circles reveal the repetitive nature of organizations when some organizing logic prevails that is difficult to abandon. Success, for example, can lead to circularity (perhaps virtuous and subsequently vicious) as organizations repeat well-tested responses. When organizations repeat a solution that worked well in the past, they can prolong their success, deepening an architecture of organizational simplicity (Reference MillerMiller, 1992), but one day, while the environment will have changed, potentially the organization will repeat the past recipe. This partly explains why successful organizations stumble even when their competitive intelligence tells them that dangerous moves are being tried by competitors (Reference Vuori and HuyVuori and Huy, 2016). Circles may become so ingrained that the attempts to correct them and change course can aggravate their dynamics: the solution becomes part of the problem. For managers, the implication is that organizations sometimes need to zoom out to make sense of their relative position, over time, in dynamic environments. A response that led to a sustainable outcome might not work if organizational conditions have changed or if the nature of the paradox has changed, for example, in its intensity.

Typically, our discussion of responses has focussed on a single paradox. A paradoxical tension rarely comes alone, nor is it dealt with in isolation, in reality. Organizational members deal with multiple paradoxical tensions mostly interwoven and nested at different levels (Reference Andriopoulos and LewisAndriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Reference Sheep, Fairhurst and KhazanchiSheep et al., 2017). For example, in addition to exploration and exploitation, organization members might be dealing with social and commercial paradoxical tensions. Paradoxical tension at one level, for example, a commercial and artistic paradox at organization levels, affects the passion and discipline paradox at an individual level (Reference GaimGaim, 2018). There are also paradoxes within paradoxes, for example, coopetition for sustainability (Reference ManzhynskiManzhynski, 2021). When competitors collaborate in sustainability projects, multiple tensions (cooperation and competition, knowledge sharing and knowledge protecting, common and private goals, economic and environmental) are evident (Reference ManzhynskiManzhynski, 2021). Thus, although most of our examples entail single paradoxes, the reality is far from that simple. Paradoxes are experienced not in isolation but rather as interrelated and at multiple levels.

4.3 Not All Paradoxes Are Created Equal

Although the different responses imply that paradoxes are being dealt with differently, the focus remains on the presence or absence of the oppositional poles – that is, paradoxical versus non-paradoxical. There is little theoretical or empirical evidence demonstrating whether all paradoxes are experienced with the same intensity. In the literature, the issue of intensity is implied but not theorized, although it is significant to understand the responses. Thus, in addition to the issues of saliency and latency (explained in Section 3.3), response to paradox also reflects intensity, meaning that paradoxes are dealt with differently. Both-and-related responses take different forms depending on how intensity is considered. In other words, when constructed as paradoxes, their intensity might differ both in time and space. For example, Reference Raisch, Hargrave and Van De VenRaisch and colleagues (2018) show how organization members’ maturity changes the way they represent a paradoxical tension. When organization members learn enough about a paradoxical tension, their understating increases through time. As a result, the intensity of the experience of a particular paradoxical tension might vary.

Thus, the simultaneous presence of contradictory yet interrelated demands does not mean both demands are equally relevant or that they are dealt with with equally high intensity, for example, across levels. The question of intensity raises an important point: not all paradoxes are constructed equally because the intensity of the experience of paradoxes can be very different depending on the context in which a paradox becomes salient.

For example, the tension between planning and improvising may be salient when plans fail and something must be done urgently to solve a problem (Reference Cunha, Kamoche and CunhaCunha et al., 2003). In a different context, a senior physician in an emergency room might feel the tension between flexibility and compliance or autonomy and control differently and less intensely than a novice physician (Reference RosalesRosales et al., 2022). The issue of intensity is more noticeable in the context of gender. In general, while both men and women face similar paradoxes in organizations in their roles as organization members, normative expectations make the experience of the relation between working life and life more generally, the work-life paradox, a more intense experience for women often putting in a ‘double-shift’ (Reference Baxter, Hewitt and HaynesBaxter et al., 2008; Reference Padavic, Ely and ReidPadavic et al., 2020) of unpaid domestic as well as paid employment duties, when childcare, meal preparation, cleaning and shopping are included in domestic responsibilities that all too often are gender assigned. If we take a gender perspective on work-life balance, irrespective of gender, those with access to more resources have many more options to lessen the intensity of the work-life paradox by the simple practice of hiring others to do the home-life work. Opportunity maps on to gender and gender maps on to segmented labour market participation. Female workers in secondary, unskilled segments of the labour market have far less economic opportunity to contract out much of domestic labour compared to their sisters in the primary segment.

When it comes to accommodating competing demands, the intensity of the paradox experienced by those acting in and on it is thus of relevance both theoretically and in practice. The experience varies with familiar aspects of structural intersectionality in social and organizational life (Reference McCallMcCall, 2005). Thus, in addition to the consideration of latency and saliency, exploring intensity can enrich the conceptualization of paradox. It has been long noted that ‘strength’ of presence, in addition to the simultaneous presence of contradictory demands that constitute paradox, should be considered in studying paradoxes (Reference Clegg, Cunha and CunhaClegg et al., 2002: 494).

The intensity of experienced paradoxes can be conceptualized as the extent to which an actor experiences a set of interdependent and contradictory requirements as more or less salient, impactful and difficult to tackle. The notion of paradox intensity comprises three different dimensions. First, contradiction intensity refers to the relative attribution of importance to the contradictory poles by actors experiencing paradox. While both poles may be accommodated, they are not necessarily equally important to the observer.

Second, impact intensity refers to the variable extent to which actors recognize contradictory demands in terms of urgency and consequence. To what extent is it considered urgent for the actors to respond to the paradox? What is the magnitude of consequence of productively (or not productively) responding to paradoxes? Thus, impact intensity is seen in terms of the timescale of perceived urgency and the perceived magnitude of response in relation to organization performance. Whether the threat/opportunity offered by the existence of the contradiction is affecting the organization in the short or long term depends on the politics of representation and temporality.

Third, challenge intensity refers to the degree to which response to the paradox is available/possible for the actors experiencing it. Intensity will be at its peak when actors lack the capacity to cope with the paradox, as is often the case with pragmatic paradoxes that paralyze actors with pathological consequences (Reference Berti and SimpsonBerti and Simpson, 2021). Material conditions and power relations, as well as the discursive availability of accounts grounded in different professional identities, will shape the degree to which a paradox is experienced as a challenge that can be met. Thus, when responding to paradox, in addition to the issue of salience, the intensity of paradox experience adds the needed complexity into the theorizing and closes the gap between theory and practice.

In the case of the latter, one issue missing in paradox theorizing is boundary conditions. True, the theoretical development has developed our understanding of paradox and how to deal with them. However, with the proliferation of studies on paradox there is a tendency to take paradoxical framing as a panacea. When focussing on the positive aspects, disregarding the challenges of paradox management could widen the gap between theory and practice (see Box 3). To fill that gap, we now turn to boundary conditions.

5.1 Onto-epistemological Aspects

Given the performativity of theories, paradox theory needs to be interrogated because of its potential to inform practice. We start with onto-epistemological aspects that will influence the subsequent sections. The theoretical foundations of paradox theory are still being debated. It is generally accepted (see, e.g., Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011) that paradoxes are both inherent to reality and socially constructed (resulting from human thinking and acting). These two perspectives leave some questions open, however.

Accepting that paradoxes are anchored in the domain of the real, in the complexity of social systems (Reference BensonBenson, 1977), means that whether people ‘detect’ them as real or not, they will be real in their consequences. For this reason, research on the material contradictions that precipitate paradox constitutes an important research endeavour. Despite not framing some conditions as paradoxical, paradoxes will sometimes reveal themselves as inconsistency, incoherence or absurdity. When fundamental contradictions operating in the domain of the real are not acknowledged, organizations may be surprised by the revelation of problematic inconsistencies, as happened with Volkswagen (Reference Gaim, Clegg and CunhaGaim et al., 2021). In other words, when organizations try to make the impossible possible, they may end up confirming that reality is not infinitely malleable.

Future research may thus continue the analysis of the ontology of paradox. Reference Hahn and KnightHahn and Knight’s (2021) work on the quantum view of paradox offers a useful step in this discussion, exposing the role of a measurement apparatus in the emergence of paradox as a salient. In this sense, paradoxes are not ‘out there’ to be discovered/detected but are enacted. In this perspective, enactment necessarily comprises a creative constitution of reality from the potentiality of the superposition state. A state of superposition refers to the peculiar circumstance in which particles seem to be in two or more places or states at once. Physicists have found this an almost impossible state to measure because the act of measurement requires an experiment that makes the condition under investigation disappear. The experiment involves firing photons at two parallel slits in a barrier. Tiny particles can behave like waves, with those passing through one slit interfering with those going through the other. Oddly, this interference occurs even when only one particle is fired at a time, seemingly passing through both slits simultaneously, interfering with itself and disappearing. Quantum researchers face the paradox of not being able to know exactly what a superposition is without looking at it. However, the very act of making it visible makes it disappear.

The situation is in reverse in organizations. Organizations generate potential but indeterminate paradoxes that can become salient to actors as real experiences following an act of measurement (Reference Hahn and KnightHahn and Knight, 2021). It is only when measured that one can determine the state the organization is in, meaning there is no object to detect prior to measurement. Measuring constitutes the object. To the measurement, we can add an enactment apparatus. An enactment apparatus explains why paradoxes are performed (or not) in the way people label contradictions.

Another implication of the distinction between latent and salient paradoxes is the idea that power relations are always implicated in the social construction of paradox. As Huq and colleagues (2019) argue, paradox needs to be ‘protected’ to avoid the vested interests that support one of the opposite poles overwhelming the other. Moreover, depending on the available words used for labelling – given the circumstances and their position in power circuits – people may create paradoxes as sources of revitalization or may become entrapped in pragmatic paradoxes (Reference Berti and SimpsonBerti and Simpson, 2021). Thus, people create paradoxes by responding to contradictions and the many possible responses (Reference Berti, Simpson, Cunha and Clegg.Berti et al., 2021b) are indicative of how different conditions favour various responses. Some people use humour (Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê, 2017) while others use silence (Reference Cunha, Fortes and GomesCunha et al., 2019b); for others, conformity and acceptance of organizational inconsistencies as normal (Reference AshforthAshforth, 1991; Reference Clegg, Cunha and MunroClegg et al., 2016) is the response. Paradoxes can be resisted and contradictions may be crystalized by habitual responses when the condition persists.

Paradoxes are only half the picture; it is what actors do with them, how they respond to them, that is significant. The focus on how paradoxes are created by responding opens a middle way between the constitutive and inherent views. It suggests that new lines of research can be obtained using performative theory (Reference Marti and GondMarti and Gond, 2018) as well as via pragmatic and realistic views. A performative view, one that looks at how paradoxes are enacted, may help to bridge inherent and constitutive views and provide a possible avenue to delve into the onto-epistemological aspects of paradox theorizing. Accordingly, future research may study paradox management by considering the measured object and the measurement apparatus as well as the words in use and the enactment apparatus. These are promising lines of research as they may help to explain why paradox may be a source of balance or a part of the absurdity.

5.2 Conceptual Clarity

Difficulties exist with the establishment of the conceptual boundaries of paradox. There is now a widely shared definition of paradox as involving persistent opposition between interdependent elements (Reference Schad, Lewis and RaischSchad et al., 2016), but it is not always easy to discriminate between similar but different types of tensions (trade-offs, dilemmas, dialectics). Therefore, the challenges around conceptual boundaries are still relevant. This is so because conceptual confusion deters theory development given the different representations of tensions (Reference Clegg and CleggClegg, 2002); what is ‘x’ might be treated as ‘y’ depending on the features employed to conceptualize it. Thus, conceptual clarity can avoid what Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam and colleagues (2016) call conceptual ‘malaise’.

Moreover, conceptual challenges are aggravated by the fact that contradictions have many faces and may change over time (Reference Gaim, Wåhlin and CunhaGaim et al., 2018). For this reason, paradoxes may metamorphose to become concepts with different characteristics. For example, the paradoxical tension between thesis and antithesis may at some point originate new solutions which transcend the current forces, establishing a new thesis for a new cycle (Reference Clegg, Cunha and CunhaClegg et al., 2002; Reference Farjoun, Langley and TsoukasFarjoun, 2016; Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011). Thus, there is still a need for more research on conceptual clarity because framing competing demands as ‘x’ or ‘y’ required a substantive feature.

Recently, a formal way to assess the ‘strength’ of paradox has emerged in philosophy. Starting from the definition of paradox as a set of mutually inconsistent claims, each of which appears to be true, Margaret Reference CuonzoCuonzo (2014) has proposed considering the subjective probability of each claim (and of their conclusion) as a measure of the intractability of paradox. Subjective probability is the degree to which a rational observer believes something, where 0 stands for complete disbelief and 1 for complete certainty, with each intermediate value representing an increasing level of probability. Since the observer making the claim is assumed to be rational, subjective does not mean arbitrariness but is based on available information and judgement; hence, it does not imply that the claim is correct or true. What creates the paradox, in the perspective of the observer, is the presence of two interrelated claims that – taken separately – each on its own has a very high degree of subjective probability; however, taken together, they lead to a conclusion that has a very low degree of subjective probability. In other words, ‘the greater the disparity between the subjective probabilities of the claims and the final conclusion, the stronger the paradox’ (Reference CuonzoCuonzo, 2022: n.p.). For instance, the classic liars’ paradox (‘this sentence is false’) is a very strong paradox since it can be broken down into a set of claims with almost perfect subjective probability (if the sentence is false, then it is true; if the sentence is true, then it is false; sentences can be either true or false), leading to a conclusion that has zero subjective probability (the sentence is both true and false).

The same principle can also be applied to organizing paradoxes, which can reveal different degrees of strength. For instance, the tensions between exploitation and exploration are often described as a paradox (exploration requires learning, which implies trying new things, which reduces efficiency; by contrast, exploitation requires control and standardization, which reduces innovation opportunity). Yet, the subjective possibility of the claim ‘exploitation hinders exploration’ (and of the converse) is far less than one: it has been shown that innovation can be found in preserving traditions, that ambidextrous balance is possible, that innovation may produce long-term efficiency, etcetera. Conversely, social contexts can generate very deep paradoxes such as the ‘paradox of tolerance’ (Reference PopperPopper, 2012), the idea that a tolerant society must be intolerant of intolerance. In this case, all the claims that form the paradox have a very high degree of subjective probability (to be completely tolerant, society must allow the expression of all views; also intolerant views are views and as such should be freely expressed; but expression of intolerance creates further intolerance, betraying the principles of open society), but lead to a conclusion that would have zero subjective probability (to be completely tolerant, a society must allow the creation of intolerance). This paradox is more than a logical puzzle since it is at the basis of very concrete and contemporary debates such as regulation of social media expression (should people be free to spread misinformation, ‘alternative facts’ and/or xenophobia?).

In the context of organizational paradoxes, the situation is further complicated by the fact that tensions between inconsistent claims are not just linguistic puzzles. Organizing is founded on language, the most basic form of organizing of experience; thus, meaningful statements cannot be made outside of a language game (Reference WittgensteinWittgenstein, 2010). Therefore, the subjective probability of a claim is socially constructed. By making information available to different organization members, limiting their judgement and decisional autonomy and setting decisional rules and routines, organizations strictly regulate the formation of subjective probabilities.

Thus, the intensity of organizational paradoxes becomes a function of the way in which organizational design and practices give priority and credence to claims (e.g., ‘one must always abide by laws’ and ‘maximising profit is an absolute priority’) which, in some situations, are inconsistent (the need to pay a bribe in order to secure a contract). Interestingly, the solutions logicians propose to treat strong paradoxes, such as keeping statements about facts and statements about statements (meta-statements) distinct (Reference Berti, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadBerti, 2021), are often not practicable in an organizational context. In organizations, actors who are subject to contradictory requirements that are made paradoxical by constraining rules (as in the case of pragmatic paradoxes) are not the same people who review rules or redistribute resources (the organizational equivalent of ‘meta-communicating’). Examining further both the conceptual and empirical intensity of organizational paradoxes using the lens afforded by the notion of subjective probabilities offers a promising avenue of inquiry.

5.3 Conceptual Straightjackets

As in any theorizing, some contributions tend to stick. Thus, in order to counter the premature convergence of paradox as noted by some (Reference Cunha and PutnamCunha and Putnam, 2019), paradox theory may avoid the use of previous theory as a straightjacket and instead explore novel possibilities. The most obvious acceptance of the previous theory, given our own experience as authors and reviewers, refers to the repetition of the four types of paradoxes enunciated by Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis (2011) (see Box 4) as probably the best example. In this repetition, the power and persuasiveness of the work of its authors is evident, but one consequence is to distract other authors from possible divergent expressions or complementary ones already established in theory. For this reason, instead of accepting well-established ideas, researchers may approach them with a critical stance, following recent developments in paradox theory, despite some aspects of paradox theory converging too rapidly for critical reflection on the language game being created (Reference Cunha and PutnamCunha and Putnam, 2019).

While the four types offer the structure for a macro-level understanding of tensions in organizations, they are too coarse-grained to cover the actual expressions of paradox at the micro level of analysis. Inductive research should thus enter the field without preconceptions about the paradoxes that will be found. Assuming ex ante that there are four paradoxes limits the power to induce observations of paradox emergence in organizational settings. It is a constraining acceptance of implicit structural functionalism.

Notions such as a triple bottom line (Reference Hussain, Rigoni and OrijHussain et al., 2018) or trialectics (Reference Ford and FordFord and Ford, 1994) open new and more complex ways of seeing tension and contradiction in organizations. Our invitation to avoid the straightjacket is not meant to suggest that trialectics is ‘better’ than dialectics or that three-force tension is more sophisticated than tensions between two poles. Instead, we merely invite you to approach the theme without too much preconception: it is still too early to close possibilities.

5.4 Boundary Conditions

Given the proliferation of paradox theorizing, there is a tendency to focus on the bright side, romanticizing the paradoxical approach as a panacea to tensions and contradictions as uniquely creative, generative and innovative (Reference Gaim, Clegg and CunhaGaim et al., 2021). Mainstream research usually focusses on the virtues of engaging paradoxes, implying that embracing paradoxes leads to creativity, learning, exceptional leadership, high-performing teams, resilience and long-term performance (Reference Hahn, Figge and PinkseHahn et al., 2018; Reference Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith and LewisMiron-Spektor et al., 2018; Reference O’Reilly and TushmanO’Reilly and Tushman, 2008; Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011). However, managing paradoxes effectively is difficult, costly and precarious (Reference Andriopoulos and LewisAndriopoulos and Lewis, 2010; Reference SmithSmith, 2014).

Lately, there has been a focus on the dark side of paradoxes (Reference Berti and SimpsonBerti and Simpson, 2021), situations in which mismanaged paradoxes might lead to unintended consequences (Reference Gaim, Clegg and CunhaGaim et al., 2021). Such works show the limits of paradox as an approach that, by implication, limits theorizing while also opening new opportunities. If the limitations are ignored with a focus solely on virtues, we risk limiting the development of the field and creating ‘narrowness and unquestioned acceptance of existing knowledge’ (Reference Cunha and PutnamCunha and Putnam, 2019). Thus, addressing the limitations keeps research in paradox theory ‘vibrant and polyphonic’, creating a space for ‘divergent views’. Moreover, if unintended consequences are to be managed, not avoided, then we need to consider what it takes to deal with paradoxes.

Divergent views and limitations open a space to explore boundary conditions – that is, conditions that ‘place limitations on the propositions generated from a theoretical model’ (Reference Busse, Kach and WagnerBusse et al., 2017: 576). Exploring boundary conditions enables us to specify ‘under which context a proposed construct will or will not apply’ (Reference Busse, Kach and WagnerBusse et al., 2017: 578). For example, we know having a paradoxical mindset or consciousness helps actors to engage with paradoxes. However, there are conditions in which this might not work (see Figure 1). Exploring boundary conditions helps in exposing those limitations and, in doing so, increases the ‘explanatory power’ of paradox theory and ‘increases precision’ by specifying how and when it is applicable. Thus, boundary conditions refer to the who, where and when aspects of theory; if the purpose of theory is to describe, explain and predict, then exploring and articulating boundary conditions enables us to explain and predict better (Reference Busse, Kach and WagnerBusse et al., 2017).

Figure 1 Boundary conditions in paradox theorizing and management

To discuss the boundary conditions, let’s now consider Figure 1. When triggered or due to unsettling events, latent tensions become salient, necessitating a response. Studies have shown that, once paradoxes are rendered salient and visible, it does not mean organization members will be able to do something about them. This possibility is contingent on the possession of an individual (Reference Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith and LewisMiron-Spektor et al., 2018) and collective (Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg, 2021; Reference Keller, Wong and LiouKeller et al., 2020) mindset (a common disposition towards a phenomenon) that enables actors to accept paradoxes and leverage their creative potential. In its absence, actors experiencing tensions are more likely to have negative emotions in the presence of contradictions and have recourse to defensive solutions (such as suppressing one pole of the tension), thus risking igniting vicious circles (Reference Smith and LewisSmith and Lewis, 2011).

5.5 Paradoxical Mindset As a Collective Phenomenon

The notion of a ‘mindset’ may be represented as an individual-level phenomenon, but it may also be approached from multiple levels of analysis. Research may explore the cross-level dimensions of the paradox mindset. The mindset may be an individual attribute (Reference SleesmanSleesman, 2019), an inter-individual process (Reference Pradies, Tunarosa and LewisPradies et al., 2020), an organizational orientation (Reference Takeuchi, Osono and ShimizuTakeuchi et al., 2008) or an inter-organizational mechanism, as in experiences with coopetition or supply chains (Reference Schrage and RascheSchrage and Rasche, 2021). Reference PamphilePamphile’s (2021) work on the interpersonal dynamics articulating philanthropy professionals suggests that these may coordinate their sense-making processes to navigate occupational challenges. This study is indicative of the promise of the study of a paradox mindset as a collective process and of the need to see paradoxical phenomena at different levels, zooming in and out (Reference Schad and BansalSchad and Bansal, 2018).

The notion of a paradoxical mindset has made its way into organizational paradox theory. A paradoxical mindset has been defined as a way of thinking that helps to interpret the experience as involving contradictory features (Reference Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith and LewisMiron-Spektor et al., 2018). It predisposes individuals to think about contradictions as normal and integral to reality rather than as signs of absurdity that should be eliminated. Paradoxical thinkers may thus be more prepared to assume that contradictions should be navigated as interdependent rather than as dilemmatic either-or types of choices. A paradox mindset thus may favour a world view in which contradiction is normal rather than aberrant. For example, organizations favouring a paradoxical view may see routine and creativity as two sides of the same coin (composing a duality) rather than as a dualism in which elements are mutually exclusive.

Even if actors deploy a paradoxical mindset, if they are impaired in their agency in choosing appropriate ways to deal with a paradox, they will experience a pragmatic paradox as paralyzing and pathological, a situation in which contradictory demands can neither be renegotiated nor coped with because any legitimate avenue of action is blocked (Reference Berti and SimpsonBerti and Simpson, 2021). Even if actors are sufficiently empowered to choose a response to a paradox, it is not a given that they will decide to embrace the tension, acknowledging its persistent and interdependent nature. So, if actors are sufficiently empowered, the next question is, are coping practices in place? Sometimes strategies can be ‘found’ and stabilized if they are perfected over time.

If actors accept that the world is paradoxical and acknowledge that reality can be productively enacted as paradoxical, paradoxes will be found. As the old sociological adage has it, if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. When paradoxical interpretations are consistently enacted, organizations may acquire mastery in the art of managing paradoxically, thus making paradoxes existentially normal. Strategies can thus be ‘found’ and stabilized if perfected over time, as happened with Toyota’s systematic pursuit of quality and efficiency via a combination of routine and creative improvement (Reference Adler, Goldoftas and LevineAdler et al., 1999). The practice inspired by the theorizing proves the value of the theory. If repeated, responses become normal and are stabilized as routines or coping practices. A successful paradox coping practice can become so entrenched that actors will take it for granted: the paradox is so seamlessly managed that ‘working through it’ becomes normal, habitual and an implicit act. When situations change, as they do processually, especially when events occur that render existing sense-making problematic, what worked at some point might fail to result in the same outcome, hence creating ‘breakdowns’ in organization members’ response to paradoxes. Breaks in sense-making necessitate new practices. If they try and fail to handle paradoxes, they may revisit the paradoxical terms and ‘solve’ the paradox by reducing expectations (Reference LiLi, 2021). Thus, by questioning the dominant viewpoint and exploring boundary conditions, we can complexify our theorizing (Reference Smith, Erez and JarvenpaaSmith et al., 2017a), which will not only foster theory development, but also mitigate the ‘research and practice’ gap.

As Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg (2021) have noted, the collective appreciation of paradox as a collective mindset may help to explain why paradox becomes ingrained. Paradoxes can also be ingrained in organizations as a cultural attribute, as in the studies by Reference Brown and EisenhardtBrown and Eisenhardt (1997) in the computer industry and by Reference Takeuchi, Osono and ShimizuTakeuchi and colleagues (2008) and Reference Aoki and WilhelmAoki and Wilhelm (2017) on how Toyota both creates tensions and buffers against tension, studies indicative of paradox as part of an organization’s identity and way of doing things. For this reason, exploring the mindset-culture nexus can help to explain how mindset becomes a defining cultural attribute, which may lead to the acceptance of ideas such as ‘creative routines’ as normal (Reference Nonaka and TakeuchiNonaka and Takeuchi, 2021).

5.6 Meta-theorizing

Paradox has been touted as constituting a meta-theory (Reference SmithLewis and Smith, 2014), a theory of theories, or a theory that may be coupled with other theories to tackle their respective elements of contradiction. Understood as a source of overarching perspectives aimed at producing a perspective that transcends organization theory (Reference RitzerRitzer, 1990; Reference ZhaoZhao, 1991), this meta-theoretical potential, until now, has been more enunciated than elaborated. In Reference RitzerRitzer’s (1990) formulation, an understanding of meta-theorizing represents it as a source of overarching perspectives that are more fundamental than organization theory.

There is ample space to realize this potential by expanding paradox theory as auxiliary to theories of organization, something that has started to occur with institutional theory (Reference Smith and TraceySmith and Tracey, 2016), teams (Reference Silva, Cunha and CleggSilva et al., 2013) and hybrid organizing (Reference Smith and CunhaSmith and Cunha, 2020). The meta-theoretical potential of paradox, however, is not an easy accomplishment. There are several obstacles. Theories tend to be protective of their core (Clegg et al., 2022) and paradox, with its emphasis on contradiction, is not necessarily a common angle for organizational theories more attuned to structural equilibrium than processual contradiction.

5.7 Cross-Cultural Aspects

Organizational paradox scholars have paid limited attention to the cross-cultural dimension, with some important exceptions (Reference Keller, Wen Chen and LeungKeller et al., 2018), especially those oriented to the study of the Eastern yin-yang approach (Reference LiLi, 2016). This is regrettable because, if paradoxes can be thought of as socially constructed, then attention needs to be paid to the cultural conditions of paradox, namely to the way different cultures express different preferences. These cultural predispositions may be the source of contradictions about preferences in cross-cultural settings.

For example, ‘good leadership’ has a very different meaning in various parts of the world (Reference MeyerMeyer, 2014). If leadership constitutes itself as a paradoxical practice (Reference Cunha, Clegg and RegoCunha et al., 2021), leading in different contexts may render this paradoxical side salient. Studying paradoxes across cultures can also facilitate the understanding of how different peoples deal philosophically with contradiction (Reference Peng and NisbettPeng and Nisbett, 1999) as well as how different cultures and world views nurture distinct types of contradictions (Reference Cunha, Fortes and GomesCunha et al., 2019b).

For this reason, instead of accepting that a paradoxical mindset means the same in different places, it might be relevant to explore the different meanings of paradox (e.g., how people understand the contradictions ontologically) and the interpretations of their expressions (i.e., what is the meaning of a ‘balanced leadership’ in different contexts?). Diverse world views, such as the differences between East and West, have been explored, but the need to integrate other epistemologies, such as African, may also be considered (Reference Gaim, Clegg, Bednarek, Cunha and SchadGaim and Clegg, 2021). Mapping the geography of paradoxical thinking and practice can thus provide interesting opportunities for the advancement of paradox research.

5.8 Delayed Effects

An important area for further exploration is the study of delayed effects – that is, effects that become visible with a lag, which result from the (mis)management of paradox. It is known that as organizations pursue a purpose, they generate intended but also unintended effects (Reference MertonMerton, 1936). For this reason, even if the paradox is typically portrayed as a source of balance, it is important to recognize and explore the fact that paradoxes can lead in directions other than those that are balanced.

The future expansion of paradox theory may thus explicitly incorporate consideration of the effects that management produces when organizational members either tackle or ignore paradox. An important area will refer to the consideration of delayed effects of paradox. A notable case during the writing of this Element was that of Theranos and its founder, Elisabeth Holmes. What was lauded as a paradoxical mastery of cutting costs while improving quality to disrupt a massive laboratory-diagnostic industry was just a sham and false promises with an implication for how promising start-ups in Silicon Valley are perceived. Similarly, some effects, namely in processes such as sustainability, do not have immediately visible effects, but the compounding factors of contradictory processes need to be studied and understood. Another theme might refer to the consequences of balance: maintaining a system in balance may be devalued as a practice because there will be nothing, apparently, remarkable or significant about it. Therefore, the question, echoing Reference Repenning and StermanRepenning and Sterman (2001), is to what extent the efforts of managers handling paradox are appreciated for maintaining balance and for solving, by anticipation, problems that never came into existence.

5.9 Methodological Challenges and Possibilities

Apart from these themes, there are also methodological challenges in current theorizing that open possibilities in studying paradoxes. In line with the different onto-methodological approaches, multiple perspectives (see Box 5 for some methodologically exemplary works) may be used to further expand organizational paradox theory. In this section, we present four methods, two for each of the dominant ontological views. No method is purely focussed on one ontological foundation or the other, but the difference helps to clarify our point. In exploring the socially constructed and material facets of paradox, organizational scholars have different strategies available to them. We highlight discourse analysis, phenomenological approaches, historical methods and system views.

Discourse analysis. Several studies analyse the role of discourse in shaping paradoxes and responses to them. First, competing discourses can be seen as a source of paradoxical tensions, as in the clash between environmental and business goals (Reference Carollo and GuerciCarollo and Guerci, 2018). If the business goal is that of maximizing shareholder value, then the logic of this position may clash with the logic of sustainability. The temporality with which the goals are being accounted is important, however. In the short term of quarterly or annual results, it may well be feasible to minimize expenditure on sustainability to fatten the bottom line. However, in the long term, as investors and customers increasingly single out sustainable products and producers, the value may well decline and reputational capital will be lost, such that it is too late to repair the damage. In the short term, it may be smarter to pursue both profitability and sustainability rather than just one goal. In fact, chasing either goal in isolation could be ruinous. If the goal is sustainability, in an ecological sense, unless value is delivered to shareholders, they are likely to protest and might well divest, with bad consequences for the business. Arguments about shareholder value versus sustainability will be communicated in board meetings, in project scrums, on websites and in announcements. All of these can be analysed discursively, identifying what characterizes the discursive themes of different constellations of interest in the organization.

Some discourses may incorporate contradictory requirements that in some conditions become manifest as pragmatic paradoxes, depriving actors of any legitimate action alternatives (Reference Berti and SimpsonBerti and Simpson, 2021) in situations resembling Orwellian doublethink, affecting female workers and managers who are required to perform incompatible gender and professional roles, for instance (Reference OakleyOakley, 2000; Reference WendtWendt, 1995). Double-bind situations and the paradoxes they cause can be part of a patriarchal culture that politicizes the female body. Organizations often expect female workers to embody a feminine ideal in terms of dress and deportment, manners and language. However, equally, they are usually expected not to display their sexuality in the office or other conventional workplaces. Reference FergusonFerguson (1984: 95) points out that ‘Women are not powerless because they are feminine; rather, they are feminine because they are powerless because it is a way of dealing with the requirements of subordination.’ The classic example of this is Reference KanterKanter’s (2008) discussion of secretarial gossip in organizations, typified in the TV drama series Mad Men. By mentioning or hinting at weak spots in terms of the male superordinate’s conduct of office, a little political leverage can be exercised. Gossip about the other has the potential to subvert power or subtly resist it, as well as acting as a safety valve. Managers can rarely avoid being talked about, and gossip is something its subject cannot frame, as it goes on ‘behind their back’. Gossip becomes seen as a feminine trait in such organizations, but, as Ferguson points out, it is a tool of the less powerful against the more powerful. Discourse-based paradox studies could also describe how discursive interactions shape paradoxes (Reference Jarzabkowski and LêJarzabkowski and Lê, 2017). Discourses can be leveraged to transcend paradoxes (Reference Abdallah, Denis and LangleyAbdallah et al., 2011) by stretching actors’ imagination and mobilizing actions so a new frame of reference can be developed that accommodates the opposites, overcoming their contradictions.

From a methodological perspective, discourse analysis offers fruitful opportunities to study paradoxes because of the diversity of approaches and perspectives about what constitutes discourse and on discourse influence on social interactions (Reference BertiBerti, 2017). Small ‘d’ discursive approaches that treat discourse as a linguistic performance (Reference Alvesson and KärremanAlvesson and Kärreman, 2000) focus on how experiences of contradictions can be diversely construed and described (e.g., as dilemmas, conflicts or double binds) by organizational actors, leading to different behaviours and coping strategies (Reference Engeström and SanninoEngeström and Sannino, 2011). Capital ‘D’ perspectives instead present a ‘muscular’ view of Discourses (Reference Alvesson and KärremanAlvesson and Kärreman, 2000), as productive of meaning and identity; authors embracing this view typically place discursive interplays as the source of ‘real’ tension (Reference Francis and KeeganFrancis and Keegan, 2020; Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos and LewisGotsi et al., 2010; Reference IivonenIivonen, 2018). In doing so, they often tap into dominant social tropes.

Conceptually, discourses play a role both in generating systemic tensions and in making them salient to actors (Reference Hahn and KnightHahn and Knight, 2021; Reference Putnam, Fairhurst and BanghartPutnam et al., 2016). Thus, from a methodological viewpoint, it can be more fruitful to employ a small ‘d’ discourse perspective to examine the way in which tensions are made visible and collectively made sense of. Doing this entails attending to the local discourses in an organization, those modes of rationality that underlie different discursive strategies and positions, perhaps embedded in disciplinary knowledge bases. Instead, a big ‘D’ perspective helps to investigate the conflict of logics that cause ‘systemic’ (Reference Schad and BansalSchad and Bansal, 2018) tension, such as would be characteristic of the earlier opposition noted between shareholder value and sustainability as distinct societal level tropes. Reference Fairhurst and PutnamFairhurst and Putnam (2019) propose an integrative methodology to bridge these two perspectives, incorporating in the mix a grounded theory approach.

Phenomenological approaches. The lived experience of paradox is an important dimension to explore (Reference Pradies, Carmine and ChealPradies et al., 2021), with paradox often presented as a source of discomfort (Reference Vince and BroussineVince and Broussine, 1996). It is possible, however, that paradox also constitutes, in some circumstances, a source of excitement (Reference GaimGaim, 2018), as reflected in Niels Bohr’s famous quote: ‘How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.’ Phenomenological studies may help to illuminate how individuals experience paradox, not as something abstract, but as a concrete, embodied experience. The same methodological approach may also help to discover when paradox is lived as a positive event, a source of novelty and discovery, the paradox of wonder Reference DastonDaston (2014) discusses.

The paradox of wonder is that it is both the beginning of inquiry as well as the end of inquiry that puts an end to wonder. ‘The marvel that stopped us in our tracks – an aurora borealis, cognate words in languages separated by continents and centuries, the peacock’s tail – becomes only an apparent marvel once explained’ (Reference DastonDaston, 2014). Wonder works as a measure of ignorance; the unlearned experience is frequently that which is rarely learned. Why something is so may be marvelled at from ignorance or known from wisdom. Phenomenological research may thus bring concreteness to paradox as something people experience bodily, as a state of existential indeterminacy, of not knowing. Several organizational processes, such as sensemaking, are often viewed as cognitive or discursive processes, but the connection between the cognitive and the lived (emotional, biological, primal) experience of contradiction may be as important as exploring its meaning. Recent work explores the sense-making of paradox (Reference Benbenisty and LuriaBenbenisty and Luria, 2021); future research may consider its emotional component.

Historic methods. Longitudinal work may help to introduce granularity into the empirical relationship between paradoxes and processes, such as circles and dialectics. The relationship between these constructs has been studied and it may be interesting to explore what new qualities a paradox in the present might gain when viewed from a historical perspective, a possibility that needs to be further addressed – consider Reference Farjoun, Poole and Van de VenFarjoun (2021) and Reference Hargrave, Poole and Van de VenHargrave (2020) for important recent developments.

The understanding of these processes will benefit from the recourse to historical methods that may illuminate the unfolding of paradoxical socio-historical patterns over time and space, as organizations and their missions change in response to changing contexts (Reference Pradies, Tunarosa and LewisPradies et al., 2020). Reference Jarzabkowski, Bednarek and KilminsterJarzabkowski and colleagues (2021b) propose the integration of historical and practice approaches to explore how the present and the past intertwine in producing patterns with circular characteristics (consider the case of the practice of the mita in Bolivia, as explained in Reference Robinson and AcemogluRobinson and Acemoglu (2012), evidencing the deep historical roots of some present-day practices). Historical repetition may normalize contradictions to the extent that they are no longer ‘visibilizable’ (Reference TuckermannTuckermann, 2019). Longitudinal work conducted over shorter periods may also be illuminating, as illustrated by Maclean and colleagues’ (2021) analysis of the evolving narratives at Procter & Gamble during a fifteen-year interval, which unearth the dynamic, evolving nature of storytelling around contradictions. A case in point of the latter is the paradox of Afghanistan – frequently invaded, never conquered, a graveyard of imperialisms. The latest ascendancy of the Taliban may seem paradoxical in view of the trillions of dollars spent in the vain pursuit of its defeat (Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2021). Historically, it should not (Reference HallydayHallyday, 1996); paradoxically, it was US CIA trillions that helped fund it in the first place as a gambit in the Cold War, the one before the War on Terror. The historical paradox is why Western powers persist in fruitless adventurism somewhere they have never succeeded in the past.

Systemic views. Systems dynamics may constitute a powerful approach to the paradoxical process in a way that will circumvent the limits of cross-sectional studies normally concentrating on a single paradox in a time-bounded way. Systems dynamics methods (Reference StermanSterman, 1994) place a much greater emphasis on the part-whole relationship, the non-linearities, feedback loops, temporal effects of the functioning of complex systems than do other methods. The fact that agents have a limited understanding of the system mitigates over-optimistic perspectives about paradox and its management. In fact, organizational systems and their environments are often too complex to be understood by the agents operating in them. Thus, studies using a systems view might offer a more complete picture of paradox management than the current theorizing affords.

6.1 Pedagogical Possibilities

Central to the paradox pedagogy is a shift in world view from aiming for linearity and certainty towards embracing uncertainty and ambiguity. Thus, instead of teaching students that the world of management is linear, a world of problems waiting for the correct solution, paradox pedagogy may assist students in understanding the uncertainty and the ambiguities of the world of organizations (Reference MarchMarch, 2010).

Paradox can be used to expose the role ambiguity plays in management, showing that decisions are always more complex than portrayed in textbooks, that important themes raise important ethical issues and that sometimes decision makers are confronted with what Reference NayakNayak (2016) called the tragic question, the awareness that confronts leaders with the need to decide between better and worse wrongs. The inevitability of tragedy should not obscure, however, the importance of measuring the consequences of one’s actions and the power of paradoxical thinking in weighting one’s impact. We envision three pedagogical strategies to use paradox in MOS: reality to theory, theory to reality and theory to theory.

6.2 Applying Paradoxes

This section focusses on how paradox can inform practice. The practical implications of paradox have been analysed. The consequences of ignoring paradox are known; over time, ignorance can result in circularity (namely dangerous vicious circles; see Reference MasuchMasuch 1985). It is also known that today’s solutions will become tomorrow’s problems (Reference GreinerGreiner, 1998). There are some illustrative examples, such as Reference Jay.Jay (2013), Reference Lüscher and LewisLüscher and Lewis (2008), and Reference Padavic, Ely and ReidPadavic and colleagues (2020), that used paradox-in-practice to explain its power and shortcoming. Reference Jay.Jay (2013), for example, considered the challenge of applying paradox in a hybrid setting and the consequences of ignoring paradox.

In their action research at the Danish company Lego, Reference Lüscher and LewisLüscher and Lewis (2008) combined sophisticated theorizing with a directed research question to understand the paradoxes with which the hardship of change confronted managers. In this view, managing change consists to some extent in articulating paradoxes. Reference Padavic, Ely and ReidPadavic and colleagues (2020) discuss how interventions can have unintended, surprising effects. In this case, policies aimed at increasing gender equality end up producing more gender inequality. This study offers an important view of the idea of paradox (that is not used deliberately in the text) as absurd, as when something supposed to produce positive effects results in negative consequences. The tension between positive and negative as duality has been acknowledged by positive organizational scholarship authors (e.g., Reference Cameron, Smith, Lewis, Jarzabkowski and LangleyCameron, 2017; Reference Cunha, Zoogah and WoodCunha et al., 2020), who have observed the potential of positivity in negative events, as well as the possible toxicity of positive interventions.

In general, practical applications of paradoxes have been identified, such as analysing polarities (Reference JohnsonJohnson, 1992), promoting integrative thinking (Reference MartinMartin, 2007), and ‘both-and’ forms of leadership (Reference Smith, Lewis and TushmanSmith et al., 2016). Recent work is articulating paradox theory with management practice in domains such as leadership (Reference Cunha, Clegg and RegoCunha et al., 2021) and innovation (Reference Lewis, Andriopoulos and SmithLewis et al., 2014), informing management practice with paradox theory. Thus, in terms of application, paradox theory has implications to offer. We present examples at different levels of analysis (for a more developed discussion, see Reference Cunha, Clegg and RegoCunha et al., 2021) that researchers can pursue.