Organizational Paradoxes Research Articles

Members or mavericks? Organizational Identification Dynamics during Secret Innovation Projects

Prior management research has provided extensive evidence that organizational members who identify with their organization tend to support its norms and objectives by displaying behaviors that are in-line with or beyond organizational expectations. We question whether this account of observable in-role or extra-role behaviors is complete and study organizational identification dynamics in a series of secret, unauthorized innovation projects (so-called “bootlegging” projects) within a technology-driven multinational firm. In contrast to prior research, our findings suggest that organizational identification may sometimes lead members to deliberately violate organizational norms in a struggle to support their organization. More specifically, we find that organizational identification turns out to simultaneously motivate both overt in-role and secret counter-role behaviors which, at first sight, appear to be conflicting as they both draw on the member’s scarce resources. However, our results reveal that both behaviors really complement each other and thus create an interesting, hitherto unexplored organizational paradox. We then move on to also study how a member’s organizational identification may change when performing the secret innovation project and uncover the critical role of managerial responses for successfully sustaining and strengthening organizational identification of members who are both, loyal members and loose mavericks at the same time.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PARADOXICAL. A Paradox Approach to Foster Sustainability

In addressing sustainability issues, companies face many conflicts between the three dimensions of sustainability (e.g., environmental and social economic goals and demands versus economic ones). Tensions in sustainability can generate complex challenges for organizations, due to the many different aspects involved—characterized by different perspectives, logics, resources, regulations, etc.—and therefore weaken their sustainability efforts. The current study aiming at empirically investigating whether the mere experience of sustainability tensions can undermine companies’ sustainability performance, and if an organizational paradox approach can support companies in mitigating their possible negative impact. A quantitative analysis has been performed on original survey data about tensions, paradox approach and performance in sustainability. The analysis revels that experiencing corporate sustainability tensions negatively affects sustainability performance of companies, and a paradox approach helps to moderate this negative impact, even if it is not able to reverse it completely.

Achieving the Paradox of Concurrent Internationalization Speed: Internationalizing Rapidly in Both Breadth and Depth

In this paper, we draw on the notions of breadth and depth of internationalization speed in an attempt to examine the performance implications for multinational enterprises (MNEs) that rapidly and concurrently internationalize in new and existing foreign markets. Specifically, we examine the organizational paradox which suggests that firms which grow internationally by concurrently expanding rapidly in both new foreign markets (breadth) and in foreign markets they currently operate (depth), are better off than firms which do not adopt such an approach. Since past research has not examined the interaction between the breadth and depth of MNE internationalization speed on firm performance, we contribute to the temporal dimension of the internationalization process by developing a novel, yet paradoxical approach. Our analysis is based on a longitudinal sample of the world’s largest retail MNEs covering the period 2003–2012, which includes the 2008 financial crisis that had a significant effect on the global economy. We find that concurrent internationalization speed positively relates to firm performance during periods of stability. Further, we draw from the upper-echelons theory and find that the aforementioned relationship can be strengthened by the level of CEO international experience and CEO education.

Paradox Peers: A Relational Approach to Navigating a Business–Society Paradox

Despite advancements in our understanding of organizational paradox, we know little about how individuals navigate paradox when tensions are core to one’s occupational role, but not a dominant conc...

Managing organizational paradoxes: a case in the financial industry

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to contribute to studies on organizational ambidexterity by analyzing how an incumbent company is managing its innovation structures and balancing exploitation and exploration activities to generate value in a digital economy context.Design/methodology/approachThe research was designed in a qualitative format through a single case study in a Brazilian financial institution, with semi-structured interviews conducted with internal and external players.FindingsBased on the case study, two possible contributions emerged as results, to fill the research gap: the need to develop more complex innovation structures, which act in a way that is integrated to the ecosystem; and the establishment of an organizational function, with a specific mandate to seek innovation in new business platforms.Originality/valueAlthough the theory gives evidence about the potential that ambidexterity represents for companies, ‘how’ to orchestrate the trade-offs to achieve it is not clear, particularly in regards to first steps toward ambidexterity. This work aims to contribute to fill this gap through an empirical study in a large Brazilian company, analyzing its trajectory toward ambidexterity.

Giving sense about paradoxes: paradoxical leadership in the public sector

ABSTRACT Although paradoxes are inherent to the public sector, few attempts have been made to better understand how to manage such competing yet interrelated demands effectively. This study examines how paradoxical leadership (i.e., leaders’ sense-giving about organizational paradoxes) affects follower outcomes. Based on two-wave survey data from German district offices, structural equation modelling reveals that paradoxical leadership positively influences followers’ job satisfaction and work engagement. Role ambiguity fully mediates the relationship between paradoxical leadership and perceived performance. Our study expands the nomological network of public leadership and advances the notion that paradoxes bear potentials for leadership in ambiguous public settings.

Neither-And Thinking: Understanding James March's Unique Solution to Paradox

ABSTRACTIn this article, I propose a typology of thinking pattern that helps us understand the variants of the so-called ‘both/and thinking’ shared by many organizational paradox scholars in the West and China. The variants are distinguished by the ‘primary thinking-secondary thinking’ structure between the combined elementary thinking. One of the variants, i.e., Neither-And thinking, is associated with James March's discussion of logic of consequences and logic of appropriateness. An examination of March's writings reveals an additional ‘principle-practice’ structure underlining March's unique solution to paradox. Incorporating the ‘principle-practice’ structure into the proposed typology in turn helps us better understand the other variants of ‘both/and thinking’ such as ambidexterity, contingency, and Zhong-Yong. The typology shows March's Neither-And solution is unique because it embraces a primary neither/nor thinking while all the other variants do not. To demonstrate the value of March's unique solution, I apply Neither-And thinking characterized by the ‘principle-practice’ relationship to paradoxes outside organization studies, e.g., in Deconstruction, Buddhism, and quantum physics. The wide application of Neither-And thinking implies that James March's unique solution to organizational paradox may have provided a key to understanding paradox in general.

Dealing With Paradoxes, Manufacturing Governance: Organizational Change in European Third-Sector Organizations

Third-sector organizations (TSOs) in Europe have been confronted with profound changes to their regulatory and societal environments. By applying the concepts of “organizational paradoxes” and “governance,” we analyze how TSOs have adjusted their governance as a response to these environmental challenges. Based on organizational case studies in France, Germany, and the Netherlands, we argue that TSOs have found multiple ways to address tensions at the organizational level, for example, by mobilizing and combining resources, re-arranging their organizational governance and by adopting new legal forms. These changes have resulted in hybridization and increased organizational complexity that might translate into the emergence of new paradoxes at the organizational level. Therefore, dealing with paradoxes constitutes an ongoing process for TSOs that goes beyond incremental adjustments.

Organizational performance evaluation and performance paradox in CCI organizations

PurposeThe study aims to understand how practicing organizational performance evaluation (OPE) is related to the performance paradox (tensions between creative freedom and survival challenges) in “evaluation-hesitant” cultural and creative industries (CCI) organizations.Design/methodology/approachMixed methods research, consisting of moderation analyses and unstructured expert interviews.FindingsA conceptual model is developed to explain how creative freedom and survival challenges affect OPE in “evaluation-hesitant” CCI organizations.Originality/valueThe authors bring a new understanding to the factors that contribute to evaluation-hesitance in CCI. The paper contributes to discussing both the theory of paradox and flow theory in explaining the relations between OPE, creative freedom and survival challenges.

Cognitive dynamics

The proliferation of disciplinary labels, distinctions, borders, and hierarchies is an interesting semiotic phenomenon per se. In particular, the need to circumscribe a new semiotics field and then denoting it as transdisciplinary appears instead to be an exercise of politics. One cannot but fall into the paradox of any systemic organization, nicely described by Simmel a long time before: By choosing two items from the undisturbed store of natural things in order to designate them as “separate,” we have already related them to one another in our consciousness, we have emphasized these two together against whatever lies between them. And conversely, we can only sense those things to be related which we have previously somehow isolated from one another; things must first be separated from one another in order to be together. (Simmel 1994: 5)

The mirroring of intercultural and hybridity experiences: A study of African immigrant social entrepreneurs

Paradox theory is attracting increasing interest from entrepreneurship scholars seeking to understand how entrepreneurs who operate hybrid organizations such as prosocial ventures can effectively address grand challenges. The organizational paradox literature suggests that differences in actors' approach to paradoxes can occur through the acquisition of different reasoning styles through exposure to different national cultures and cultural resources. We complement the paradox research stream on culture as a resource with the alternative perspective of culture as an experience, which we argue offers additional insight into hybridity within a global context because intercultural experiences are intrinsically paradoxical. Our 18 case studies of immigrant entrepreneurs from the African diaspora operating their prosocial ventures in Western contexts finds that the ways that immigrant entrepreneurs approach tensions in their prosocial ventures mirrors the nature of their intercultural experience. We also find that approaches to paradox vary based on structural barriers such as social exclusion that entrepreneurs faced in their formative years. Overall, our study contributes to research on culture in paradox theory and the prosocial venturing literature by elucidating how entrepreneurs' intercultural experience and the global macro-level systems in which it is embedded inform the degree and configurations of hybridity in prosocial ventures.

‘Damned if you do and damned if you don’t’: a framework for examining double binds in public service organizations

ABSTRACT A key challenge for contemporary public service organizations is the requirement to incorporate different, at times conflicting, demands into their operations. Such demands and the organizational challenges they impose have been described in theories of institutional complexity, organizational paradox(es) and conflicting public values. In this paper, we complement these existing theories by developing an analytical framework based on the ‘double bind’ theory. The framework enables understandings of conflicting demands stemming from double communication and elusive mixed messages. We demonstrate the usefulness of the double bind framework by examining the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration.

The tensions of defining and developing thought leadership within knowledge-intensive firms

PurposeA major part of knowledge management for knowledge-intensive firms such as professional service firms is the increasing focus on thought leadership. Despite being a well-known term, it is poorly defined and analysed in the academic and practitioner literature. The aim of this article is to answer three questions. First, what is thought leadership? Second, what tensions exist when seeking to create thought leadership in knowledge-based organisations? Third, what further research is needed about thought leadership? The authors call for cross-disciplinary and academic–practitioner approaches to understanding the field of thought leadership.Design/methodology/approachThe authors review the academic and practitioner literature on thought leadership to provide a rich oversight of how it is defined and can be understood by separating inputs, creation processes and outcomes. The authors also draw on qualitative data from 12 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of professional service firms.FindingsThrough analysing and building on previous understandings of the concept, the authors redefine thought leadership as follows: “Knowledge from a trusted, eminent and authoritative source that is actionable and provides valuable solutions for stakeholders”. The authors find and explore nine tensions that developing thought leadership creates and propose a framework for understanding how to engage with thought leadership at the industry/macro, organisational/meso and individual/micro levels. The authors propose a research agenda based on testing propositions derived from new theories to explain thought leadership, including leadership, reducing risk, signalling quality and managing social networks, as well as examining the suggested ways to resolve different tensions.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, they are the first to separate out thought leadership from its inputs, creation processes and outcomes. The authors show new organisational paradoxes within thought leadership and show how they can play out at different levels of analysis when implementing a thought leadership strategy. This work on thought leadership is set in a relatively under-explored context for knowledge management researchers, namely, knowledge-intensive professional service firms.

Navigate Paradox in Organizations: The Implications of Combining Theory of Paradox with Practice

The search to uncover the implications of combining paradox with real life practice have led scholars into an impasse and yielded paradoxical results that are still theoretical in nature. This qualitative research draws on a variety of studies to frame an approach to paradox using insights from Zen psychology, brain plasticity and behaviour. Considering a change in behaviour entails plasticity in the brain, and willingly engaging in attempts to navigate paradox is per se a change in behaviour, thus, it is apparent that once we push a brain by means of behaviour change to become plastic to the chaotic, irrational and ambiguous nature of paradox, it adjusts itself to satisfy this newly adopted behaviour considering that literature contributed little to merge paradox theory with practice. The change in behaviour is facilitated by a stimulus model which will be the ultimate product of my research on paradox. Keywords: Paradox, Learning model, practice, Behaviour and organizations DOI: 10.7176/EJBM/12-29-06 Publication date: October 31 st 2020

Paradoxes of Business: Towards A Practice Model to Attend to Paradox Tensions in Organizations and Develop the Leaders of Tomorrow

Paradoxes in business i.e. strategy paradoxes, leadership paradoxes, management and organizational paradoxes are inseparable from organizations’ front-end decision making. Existing literature has examined these paradoxes in mainly diverse theory driven perspectives that pointed towards the need to develop a learning cycle to sustain a practical model to help in navigating the business paradoxes. The aim of this paper is to uncover the best possible practical approach that would facilitate the process of navigating the paradoxes in organizations. I review a vast array of paradox and brain plasticity literature and conclude that a change in leadership behaviour towards accepting, embracing, and exercising these paradoxes in a form of a business simulation is crucial. Thus, I propose a learning model to sustain and support this practical model.

Demystifying the winning managerial characteristics for handling organizational paradoxes

Purpose This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies. Design/methodology/approach This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context. Findings This research paper concentrates on the impact that the managerial characteristics of age, educational background, and in-company tenure and in-role tenure have on a manager's ability to handle paradoxical priorities. The results reveal that an organization's strategic paradoxes are most effectively managed by older managers and by managers with longer tenure in their role and at the company overall. Unexpectedly, managers with an economics/business educational background were found to manage paradoxes less well than those with other educational backgrounds. Originality/value The briefing saves busy executives, strategists and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

A Quantum Approach to Paradox Entails neither Preexisting Tensions nor Asymmetry: Response to Xin Li

We welcome the opportunity to engage in a dialogue about our work (Hahn & Knight, 2019). In fact, we had hoped that our quantum approach would inspire scholars to reexamine the assumptions that are brought to bear in studying organizational paradoxes. We interpret Li’s (2020) dialogue piece as a restatement of the underlying theoretical contributions we make in our original article, rather than something conceptually new. We note that Li chooses to deploy some new terms, though, which has the potential to be unhelpful, given the complexity of integrating disciplinary fields as diverse as physics and organizational theory. Overall, we see Li’s efforts as an opportunity to clarify some core features of a quantum approach to paradox that may not have become clear enough in our original conceptualization. We now detail the main points of Li’s dialogue and our response to these so as to advance the conversation on organizational paradox and the quantum approach.

From Taking to Shaping – Why Temporal Tensions Matter for Organizations

In this paper, we advance the notion of temporal tensions by building on three time-related constructs that address how individuals perceive and think about time: temporal depth, temporal focus, and urgency. Our focus lies on how actors shape and embrace temporal tensions on multiple levels within and outside the organization. Embracing such temporal tensions enables actors to understand the nestedness of conflicting goals, change temporal structures, and to focus their attention on urgent issues in the organization and in the social, ecological, and economic environment. We inform research on time in organizations by advancing the notion of temporal tensions and by emphasizing their multi- and cross-level nature. We contribute to research on tensions and paradoxes in organizations by conceptualizing tensions as the result of different stimuli and of an actor’s cognition. Lastly, we also contribute to research on temporality by bridging the subjective and objective notion of time in temporal tensions.

Paradoxical Tensions in Diversity Management: Stakeholder Perspectives and Coping Strategies

Recent scholarship on organizational paradox has highlighted that the effects of paradox on organizational success are highly dependent on the ways in which the underlying tensions are constructed and acted upon by organizational actors. Hence this paper examines systematically how the internal and external stakeholders of an organization deal with the tensions surrounding one particular paradox, that of combining social and economic objectives in a diversity policy. It emerges from our data that stakeholders perceive of paradoxical tensions in a nested fashion: some only see one category of tensions, while others perceive a much wider range. Engagement with paradoxical tensions also seems to go through a U- shaped curve: stakeholders who are little or very much involved with the diversity policy look more to acceptance strategies, whereas those with a medium level of engagement are more likely to use a resolution strategy. Furthermore, we identified seemingly novel acceptance strategies from the data that operate not at the level of an individual stakeholder but at the collective level.

Three Pillars of Inclusive Leadership: A Paradox Approach

Although making members feel included is suggested to help teams and organizations to harness the benefits of diversity, little consensus has been reached in terms of what is involved in inclusive leadership. Grounding on mechanisms that often cause senses of difference/similarity and inclusion/exclusion, we theorize inclusive leadership as concerning including differences in information, identity, and status. We further apply a paradox perspective to elucidate potential paradoxical tensions in each of the three pillars of inclusive leadership. Specifically, leaders may enact potential tensions between encouraging information heterogeneity and developing shared mental models when including information differences; between fostering a superordinate identity and affirming subgroup identities when including identity differences; and between promoting equality and providing differential treatment when including status differences. Moreover, these three sets of paradoxes are often interlocked so that triggering one set of tensions is likely to enact other tensions. We offer strategies to manage these tensions. The conceptualization contributes a novel perspective to research on inclusive leadership, diversity management, and organizational paradoxes.