Reflections: Return Paradox to the Wild? Paradox Interventions and Their Implications

ABSTRACT

Cunha, M. P., and Putnam, L. L. (2017. Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization. http://dx.doi.org/10.l177/1476127017739536) argued that paradox research has fallen victim to its own success. In a race for institutionalization, paradoxes have putatively been removed from their natural habitat and ‘tamed,’ as the search for best practices has decontextualized, abstracted, and reified them. This essay responds to Cunha and Putnam by first cataloguing various interventions based in paradox and, relatedly, dialectics and then addressing the issues surrounding their oversimplification. If, as research suggests, paradoxes are so embedded in the daily actions and interactions of organizational life that they become difficult to spot or are too intertwined in systems of contradictions, how should we be thinking about interventions, including those less inclined to make a deep dive into context?

KEYWORDS:

• Paradox
• dialectics
• organizational change
• organizational interventions

Introduction

In 1994, Charles Handy wrote,

The more turbulent the times, the more complex the world, the more paradoxes there are. We can, and should, reduce the starkness of some of the contradictions, minimize the inconsistencies, understand the puzzles in paradoxes … we have to learn to use the paradoxes – the balance, the contradictions, and inconsistencies – as an invitation to find better ways (p. 13).

Arguably, very little has changed since 1994. This may explain the proliferation of paradox research across the organizational sciences, especially as a mode for understanding organizational change and inertia (for recent reviews, see Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016).

However, in a provocative essay, Cunha and Putnam (2017) argue that paradox research has fallen victim to its own success. In a race for institutionalization, paradoxes have putatively been removed from their natural habitat and ‘tamed.’ No longer enduringly puzzling, wicked, or uncontrollable, the search for best practices has decontextualized, abstracted, and reified them. Paradox research has strong implications for organizational change, they argue, but only when reflection-in-action is embraced to resist such simplifying tendencies.

Yet, Cunha and Putnam’s (2017) essay begs the question as to what paradox interventions actually exist, and how might we assess their effectiveness in light of some of the cautionary lessons of paradox research. In this reflective essay, I would like to continue this conversation by first cataloguing various paradox-based interventions and their differences with dialectical thinking interventions, a close cousin. I would also like to address Cunha and Putnam’s (2017, p. 6) argument that best practice interventions oversimplify the vast complexity of paradoxical processes. If, as research suggests, paradoxes are so embedded in the daily actions and interactions of organizational life that they become difficult to spot or are too intertwined in systems of contradictions, how should we be thinking about paradox interventions, including those less inclined to make a deep dive into context?

Paradox

A useful starting point is to define terms; however, these definitions might not align with various authors I cite given the definitional ambiguity in this literature (Putnam et al., 2016). The terms include: tensions (stress-inducing oppositions), contradictions (interdependent oppositions that potentially negate each other), dialectics (negating oppositions with an ongoing dynamic interplay), and paradoxes (persistent oppositions that often result in an ironic or absurd outcome) (Fairhurst & Putnam, in press; Putnam et al., 2016). As can be seen from this list, both paradox and dialectic traditions are based in contradictions. However, paradox research, whose origins are relatively recent (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Putnam, 1986; Smith & Lewis, 2011), has an interventionist and problem-solving focus (Farjoun, 2016), such as when organizational change contradicts established practices and requires attention to thwart resistance (Sparr, 2018). Interventions could involve neutral third parties, such as consultants, trainers, or researchers, or organizational actors assisting one another.

The origins of such a focus lie within the template for a lot of paradox research. The template is a relatively simple one in that the focus is on identifying one or more contradictions or paradoxes and their management strategies, typically through the sensemaking accounts of organizational actors. Analysts then (re)theorize with paradox in mind and demonstrate its relevance to various organizational outcomes. This research model has produced a diverse and interesting array of paradoxes (see Schad et al., 2016), with the most popular perhaps being the learning (destroying the past to build the future), belonging (individual vs. collective tensions; competing values, roles and memberships), organizing (collaboration vs. competition, empowerment vs. direction), and performing paradoxes (multiple and competing stakeholder goals and outcomes) of Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 383).

How does the research programme translate into organizational change practices? Table 1 reflects a number of paradox-based interventions. Those specifically oriented to individuals (1.A.1–3) mirror the research model by highlighting individual agency and sensemaking, the need to actively manage contradictions and, not least, to see value and opportunity in them. Unsurprisingly, these revolve around shareholder value and managerial interests (Farjoun, 2016).

Table 1. Distinctive features of interventions focused on paradox and dialectics.

Approach	Distinctive Features	Illustrative References
I. Paradox-Based Interventions	Concerned with identifying paradoxes and management strategies, maximizing managerial interests in outcomes.	Farjoun (2016)
A. Individual
1. Paradoxical thinking	Reflexive thinking to embrace contradictions, be energized by them, and explore ways to respond in a ‘both/and’ or ‘ambidextrous’ fashion.	Clarke (1998); Fletcher and Olwyler (1997); Lewis and Dehler (2000); O’Reilly and Tushman (2004); Smith and Tushman (2005)
2. Competing values framework	Orientations to problem solving derived from competing sets of values, giving rise to the presence and necessity of paradox	Cameron and Quinn (2005, 2011); Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, and Thakor (2007); Lavine (2014); Quinn (1984)
3. Helvig square	Unmasking ‘degenerate forms’ of contending opposites that create misperceptions.	Marsh and Macalpine (1999)
B. Collaborative dialogue
1. Action Science	Reflection and inquiry about contradictions to promote system learning.	Argyris and Schön (1996); Lüscher and Lewis (2008)
2. Reflexive practice	Exploring the dynamic interplay of opposites in generative dialogue. Becoming aware of tensions through reflexive positioning, creating self and relational reflexivity, forming connections, and developing mutuality.	Barge, Lee, Maddux, Nabring, and Townsend (2008); Huxham and Beech (2003)
a. Serious play	Purposeful action driven by improvization and experimentation through disrupting the rules, playing with multiple meanings, emotion expression, and challenging normal boundaries enabling people to move forward in the midst of paradoxes.	Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh, and MacLean (2004)
b. Third spaces, Trialectics	Development of dialogic relationships to enable higher order thinking around the introduction of a third element that dereifies oppositions in a balanced relationship, opening a space for change based in attraction, not conflict.	Barge and Little (2002); Ford and Backoff (1988); Ford and Ford (1994); Janssens and Steyaert (1999)
II. Dialectics-Based Interventions	Contrarian involving struggle and conflict; iterative or transformative; narrative and sequential; dialectical traditions do not inherently serve shareholder and managerial interests, but interventions typically do	Benson (1977); Farjoun (2016); Langley and Sloan (2011); Nielsen (1996)
A. Dialectical thinking	Opposites can and should be transcended or held concurrently through debate, dialogue, and constructive conflict management	Farjoun (2016); Langley and Sloan (2011)
1. Hegelian	Dialectical thinking with synthesis of contradictory tensions.	Hegel (1969); Churchman (1979); Mason (1996); Nonaka and Toyama (2002, 2005); Van de Ven and Poole (1995)
2. Bakhtinian (and several others)	Dialectical thinking without synthesis of contradictory tensions.	Bakhtin (1981, 1986); Benson (1977); Calori (2002); Seo, Putnam, and Bartunek (2004); Zeitz (1980)
B. Dialectical inquiry systems and techniques	Structured debate around plans and counterplans to amplify differences for more effective vetting, synthesis, decision-making, and strategic planning	Cosier, Ruble, and Aplin (1978); Cosier and Aplin (1980); Hedberg and Jonsson (1978) Cosier and Schwenk (1990); Mason and Mitroff (1979); Mitroff and Emshoff (1979)

Two of the most popular approaches for training managers are paradoxical thinking and the competing values framework. In paradoxical thinking (Clarke, 1998; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Smith & Tushman, 2005), or mindset (Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith, & Lewis, 2018), managers are taught to embrace contradictions as opportunities versus obstacles to avoid. Paradoxical thinking strongly encourages managing contradictions with a both-and approach, in which the interests of both poles are reconciled in some fashion. This contrasts with either-or thinking, which is the much easier default logic for many managers. The challenge for organizational change interventions lies in how to develop paradoxical thinking in managers. Best practices range from living with the paradox to developing new ways of seeing complexity (e.g. discovering inner or core personal paradoxes, clarifying levels of reference and time orientations, enlisting others to help spot paradoxes) to adopting particular types of management strategies (e.g. engage stakeholders in seeking solutions, build resources to address common paradoxical circumstances) (De Cock & Rickards, 1996; Fletcher & Olwyler, 1997; Lewis & Dehler, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith, Besharov, Wessels, & Chertok, 2012).

The competing values framework (hereafter, CVF) similarly establishes the presence of and necessity for paradox (Cameron & Quinn, 2005, 2011; Quinn, 1984; Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath, & Bright, 2015). It is a formal model based on two sets of opposing values dimensions that exist in all organizations. One dimension contrasts flexibility and adaptability with stability and control, while a second distinguishes an internal orientation with a focus on efficiency from an external orientation with a focus on differentiation and competition. Crossing these two dimensions produces four quadrants: Collaborate (clan orientation), Create (adhocracy orientation), Compete (market orientation), and Control (hierarchical orientation) – where competing or paradoxical elements emerge through contrasting opposing quadrants (Lavine, 2014). A popular organizational development model, it strives for leadership and organizational competency in all four quadrants by understanding the paradoxes that the model surfaces (e.g. promoting change and adaptability, but also stability and control), accompanied by the ambidexterity necessary to address them effectively (e.g. using routines and habits to enhance creativity and innovation) (Lavine, 2014, p. 199; Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Cameron, 1983, 1988; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983).

A less popular individually based paradox intervention is the Helvig Square (Marsh & Macalpine, 1999). It takes an interesting linguistic and psychological turn by focusing on ‘degenerative forms’ of contending opposites. For example, polarizing labels or metaphors, combined with emotionally packed language, may misrepresent paradoxical tensions in everyday discourse, divide people, and impede dialogue. The goal of the Helvig Square is to work through these degenerative forms by addressing the fears behind them, surfacing assumptions, and challenging the barriers to resolving paradoxes.

A second category of paradox-based interventions in Table 1 has a dialogic and collective sensemaking emphasis (I.B.l-2b). The first of these is action science (Argyris, 1982, 1992; Argyris & Schön, 1996), which focuses on generating knowledge to solve real-world problems. More specifically, research is built into the process of intervention and theory building through an iterative process grounded in collaborative inquiry (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). For example, Lüscher and Lewis (2008) discerned possible patterns and categories in managerial sensemaking accounts at the Lego Company, leveraged outside perspectives (e.g. consultants, colleagues) in helping to interpret them, and encouraged research subjects to engage in ongoing reflection and experimentation to assess validity and value.

When the Lego Company was undergoing a major organizational change towards self-managing teams, middle managers experienced ambiguity, conflicts (e.g. control versus empowerment issues), and paralysis in trying to institute the change. Lüscher and Lewis (2008) used action research to help participants see the complexity and conflict through a paradox lens. Paradoxes were not resolved, but managed with both-and thinking that led to ‘workable certainties’ and actions that interrupted paralytic cycles hampering the change effort at Lego.

Reflective practice is the second category in the collaborative dialogue section of Table 1. Here the change process is the site of generative dialogue through exploring the dynamic interplay of opposites in a collective forum, becoming aware of their (highly situated) forms, creating self and relational reflexivity, forming connections, and developing mutuality and appreciation (Barge et al., 2008; Huxham & Beech, 2003). Reflective practice aims for more informed collective decision-making through helping participants develop new ways of seeing a complex world.

For example, Beech et al. (2004) introduced the concept of serious play, where the idea is to develop an arsenal of tools that play with meaning, express emotion, test boundaries, and disrupt rules to foster workarounds, adjustments, and situated calibrations that support organizational change in sometimes subtle, but meaningful ways. There is a strong belief that the enduring and embedded nature of some paradoxes (e.g. as in hybrid organizations combining social and business demands; Smith & Besharov, 2017) should not be cause to stymy organizational change. By ‘keeping paradoxes open,’ the idea is to not to ‘solve’ paradoxes that really can’t be solved, but to find more creative ways of living with them.

A second example involves third spaces, sometimes known as trialectics. Such an approach fosters dialogue to introduce a third element to reorder relationships between the poles, deblock a fixation on them, and still maintain their balanced operation (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999, p. 134). For example, in managing the tension between autonomy and connection in traditional leader-member relationships that are shifting to self-managing teams, autonomy might be reframed as a form of connection that is necessary for leaders to grant autonomy. The desirability of this kind of reframing inheres in ‘trialectics,’ in which organizational change involves a qualitative leap based in attraction, not conflict between poles (Ford & Backoff, 1988; Ford & Ford, 1994). Thus, ‘the trialectic change agent is engaged in creating futures that draw or attract people toward a future possibility’ (Ford & Ford, 1995, p. 786).

Although this last category of paradox based interventions veers into dialectics territory, what unites the aforementioned approaches is their interventionist and problem solving focus either through individual sensemaking aimed as transforming thinking habits (Farjoun, 2017) or some type of generative dialogue to discern and accept paradox. Both sets of approaches emphasize the need to actively manage contradictions and to treat them as opportunities not problems.

Dialectics

Contra paradox research, the study of dialectics has a long and rich history. Several authors have already traced this history with respect to organization studies (Farjoun, 2017; Langley & Sloan, 2011; Mason, 1996; Nielsen, 1996), noting the influence of Hegel’s (1969) thesis, antithesis, synthesis as a key motor of change (Mason & Mitroff, 1979; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), but also those who focus on the ongoingness of contradictory tensions without resolution (Benson, 1977; Calori, 2002). As mentioned above, best practices regarding paradox have had a tendency to decontextualize, abstract, and reify contradictions (Cunha & Putnam, 2017), which may partially be a function of the template for paradox research. Not so with dialectical research, in which contradictions are embedded in processes of struggle and confrontation in entwined social systems. Contradictions may occur between different levels of the organization; the organization’s interface with the external environment; differing practices within organizational units; the practices of a unit versus its rhetoric; material conditions as opposed to its constructed realities; and so on (Benson, 1977; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Putnam, 2015). There is a historical, contextual, and narrative quality to dialectical research based on the inevitability of conflict and the sequential, ‘becoming’ nature of social interaction and change processes (Farjoun, 2017; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Managerial interests and profit motives are also easily critiqued, such as we find in Marxist-inspired approaches in the critical tradition (Mumby, 2005).

How does dialectics research translate into organizational change and practice? Table 1 focuses on types of dialectical interventions that are fewer in number compared to paradox. Farjoun (2016) characterizes the first category, dialectical thinking, much like paradoxical thinking, as a type of thinking habit (II.A.1–2). Langley and Sloan (2011) use the term ‘mantra,’ which appears equally valid. Managers trained in dialectical thinking may invoke the concept repeatedly as a touchstone to explain conflict. Yet, it also parallels paradoxical thinking in the belief that contradictions can and should be managed, and there is opportunity and value in them. For dialecticians, the opportunity usually lies in dialogue.

For example, consider a Hegelian perspective on dialectical thinking. In Nonaka and Toyama’s (2002, 2005) study on a knowledge theory of the firm, a firm can and should be taught to become a ‘dialectic being,’ one that synthesizes contradictions with the right frame or vision towards knowledge. Such a vision involves ba, a quality that maximizes the conditions for knowledge sharing and synthesis, including dialectical dialogue that entails a plurality of views. Through creative routines, incentive systems, and distributed leadership, knowledge creation can become a continuous dialectical process that becomes second nature to the firm (Nonaka & Toyama, 2002, p. 1003).¹

By contrast, Calori (2002) advances the notion that creative dialectical evolution is possible through organizational development (OD).² However, OD is less a function of the tools and techniques of the standard OD practitioner and more a function of philosophical questioning and doubt i.e. a central frame or set of frames through which to discern and drive change. Similar to Nonaka and Toyama (2002, 2005), the firm is a distributed knowledge system, but Calori (2002) emphasizes organizational members’ common sense knowledge as revealed through their narratives. Such narratives surface history and ‘lay ontologies,’ not just for building higher order theories of change, but also for enhancing OD flexibility through incorporating dialectical principles.

A second category of dialectical interventions in Table 1 concerns well­ established dialectical inquiry (DI) systems and techniques (II.B.), which are intended to improve managerial decision-making and strategic planning through structured debate.

Based in a Hegelian view of dialectics, DI occurs through one set of advocates proposing a plan or strategy reflecting a particular view of the world, which is then countered by advocates of a plausible alternative worldview that, ideally, negates the former. The contestation that surfaces between strongly contrasting worldviews clarifies key assumptions, providing a means to maximize choice in formulating a new and expanded worldview for those planners and CEOs who observe the debate (Cosier et al., 1978; Mason & Mitroff, 1979; Mitroff & Emshoff, 1979).

The efficacy of DI has been the subject of experimental testing in comparison with alternative methods, such as devil’s advocacy and consensus-based approaches, with the latter deemed a less effective method for generating creative options (Katzenstein, 1996; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). In practice, however, questions have emerged over the unintended consequences of structuring debate when conflict is marked by incivility, unregulated emotions, and uncertain outcomes (Langley & Sloan, 2011; Mason, 1996).

Although the dialectical tradition is not inherently managerialist, the aim of dialectical thinking, dialectical dialogue, and structured debate is most certainly oriented to developing organizations and assisting managers in their decision-making and strategic planning. Of course, the goal is constructive conflict management and a creative synthesis of opposing plans and strategies, but that’s not always a guaranteed outcome. This cautionary note is the perfect segue to ask, how might we evaluate the effectiveness of paradoxical and dialectical interventions based on what research is telling us today?

Paradox research and intervention implications

Along with my colleagues Linda Putnam and Scott Banghart, I recently participated in a review of the paradox literature writ large (Putnam et al., 2016). We found it to be massive; there were some 850 publications, on approximately 30 different organizational topics, in 140 different journals using the key words tensions, contradictions, dialectics and paradoxes. Theoretical frameworks were as wide-ranging as dynamic systems theory, institutional theory, structuration theory, postmodern studies, and critical management studies, which formed the basis for our review.

I should hasten to point out that in the several years since the review, the pace of paradox research appears undiminished, and why shouldn’t it? Global economies, multiculturalism, shifting labour supply and demand, new technologies, rapidly changing markets, hybrid organizations with social and business missions, and a host of other factors are forcing organizations to face ever more incongruities between the old and new. As organizational life becomes increasingly complex, the good news for paradox research is that the future looks bright. The bad news is that organizational change practices may have a hard time keeping up.

Certainly, the approaches in Table 1 are all well intended efforts to normalize contradictions and get people, especially managers, thinking about them in more creative ways and not just as anomalies. Practitioners should be lauded for these efforts. On the other hand, with a few notable exceptions, the interventions in Table 1 rest heavily on five assumptions: (1) paradoxes are obvious, (2) single, key contradictions encapsulate experience, (3) both-and management strategies are better than either-or management strategies, (4) power is discussable; and (5) emotions are mostly benign. Unfortunately, research on paradox is calling these assumptions into question.

Are paradoxes obvious? Are they obvious to everyone? Scholars argue that paradoxical tensions often remain latent in organizations i.e. ‘dormant, unperceived, or ignored’ (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 390), and consequences ensue for ignoring them (e.g. inertia, vacillation, mission drift, factionalization, and internal strife) (Jay, 2013). However, processes of organizational change, resource scarcity, or environmental factors can effectively bring them to the forefront (Ford & Backoff, 1988; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Smith & Lewis, 2011). For example, Jay (2013) studied organizational change in a hybrid energy alliance and found that outside perspectives as opposed to insider insights provided a clearer view of the paradoxes that inhibited the change process and how they were being navigated. Jay (2013, p. 147) noted,

‘Navigating’ here is a deliberate metaphor. The image is that of paradox beneath the surface of the water. Now and again it surfaces, in prominent moments of success and failure or of their imagination. Unaware of the shape of the paradox, people run aground on it and get stuck. Aware of it, they find creative routes. An outsider above the scene – a customer, a researcher – can help point out the paradox (hopefully in time).

In this case, both customers and the researcher’s in process writings facilitated ongoing sensemaking through active reflection on the paradoxes inside the organization during change.

While this certainly establishes a raison d'etre for paradox interventions, research suggests that change agents must also factor in organizational members’ abilities to discursively penetrate their conditions (Giddens, 1984). That is, to understand, be able to articulate, and manage paradoxical tensions, along with the vicious cycles of inertia, confusion and conflict that they produce, requires a lot of cognitive complexity and verbal and behavioural dexterity (Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Jay, 2013; Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi, 2017). Work by Gibbs (2009) suggests that managers will be better at this than team members, but managers will still vary in their abilities to do this.

How much do paradox interventions assume the obviousness of paradoxical tensions? Table 1 suggests that a large proportion of these approaches do. Few of the interventions recount processes of seeking to discover latent paradoxes, except the research component of action science. However, Mason (1996, p. 299) observed that even action scientists have tricks by which to quickly zero in on key contradictions because they don’t have the time, money, or patience to let the process unfold on its own. Unfortunately, key contradictions may be complicated by other related concerns, as the next question suggests.

Are paradoxical conditions experienced as single, key contradictions? For paradox scholars, the sensemaking process, which is always expressed and mediated through language, involves a natural process of drawing distinctions between intertwined yet opposing viewpoints, messages, practices, emotions, expectations, and so on (Ford & Backoff, 1988). These efforts, however, often simplify complex realities into polarized, either-or distinctions. Lewis (2000) makes the interesting observation that to build capacity to address paradox, actors and analysts must contend with this natural tendency to overrationalize and oversimplify the complexity of oppositions.

Interestingly, the template for most paradox research is illustrative because it typically singles out paradoxical tensions versus examining them simultaneously. It is not that scholars don’t recognize that paradoxical tensions co-occur (e.g. Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Dameron & Torset, 2014; Huxham & Beech, 2003; Jarzabkowski, Le, & Van de Ven, 2013); it is that they bypass how managers and other actors voice and perceive their co-occurrence. Aiming directly at this issue, Sheep et al. (2017) in their study of a print organization found that while resource scarcity did indeed bring paradoxical tensions to the surface, actors justified inaction through knotting multiple tensions to show how they were impacting one another. Likewise, Andriopoulos (2003) discovered six key paradoxes to managing creativity; however, it was the interdependency of the contradictions, not their separate treatment, which was the critical success factor in managing them.

Are the interventions in Table 1 capable of eliciting such nuanced information regarding the interdependencies among multiple tensions? The collaborative dialogue interventions (e.g. action science, reflective practice) likely have the best chance at uncovering this kind of information because they foster the greatest amount of immersion into the context, and they probe for connections among paradoxes. However, even these approaches greatly depend upon the information the interventionist has through experience with the company, the quality of the dialogic conversations, or the quality of their action research. It also depends on their abilities to guide conversations about interdependencies with people who are experiencing them differently or who differ in their abilities to understand and articulate them.

Are both-and management strategies better than either-or management strategies? On the surface, this may seem like an obvious ‘yes’ answer to the question. After all, paradox approaches are premised on getting organizational actors to understand how contradictory elements are not distinct, but inherently interdependent (Lewis, 2000). Ambidexterity as a particular approach aims to satisfy multiple interests, thus giving organizations the requisite variety to deal with a fast-changing world. In that way, all of Table 1’s interventions meet this goal. A deeper look at current research, however, suggests that both-and approaches are not always ideal.

For example, Davis and Eisenhardt’s (2011) study of partnering innovation firms, each with unilateral control needs, were more innovative when leadership was rotated i.e. an either-or approach. Li (2016) argues that both-and thinking emphasizes synergy, but denies the consideration of trade-offs, a part of either-or thinking. Moreover, in three case studies, Abdallah, Denis, and Langley (2011) found that discourses of transcendence (i.e. ambidexterity [Lewis, 2000], synthesis [Poole & Van de Ven, 1989], or ‘creative synthesis’ involving consensus-based, both/and or win/win solutions) produced unintended consequences that spelled their demise over time.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to suggest that any organizational member’s tool bag should contain a mix of different ways for dealing with paradox (Li, 2016); that much is obvious. The problem with the interventions in Table 1 is that they may introduce the expectation of success simply because of using both-and management strategies when this may not be the outcome of the intervention.

How much is power a discussable issue? Fairhurst, Cooren, and Cahill (2002) studied a series of organizational downsizings in which a both-and vision satisfying the needs of workers and company management was generated from within a middle-level human resource manager. Despite also winning strong approval from the company’s major contractor who sought to protect the visionary middle manager’s job, senior managers sabotaged it by downsizing his entire staff, rendering him incapable of carrying out the vision. Langley and Sloan (2011) wrote about the senior managers in Mitroff, Barabba, and Kilmann’s (1977) study who purposely excluded themselves from dialectical inquiry exercises under the pretense of openness and safeguarding against undue influence, only to retain unilateral control over the issues. Langley and Sloan observed,

Indeed, the problem with implementing ‘dialectic inquiry’ as a formal technique is similar to that faced with any organizational change intervention. The structure of the intervention itself will interact dialectically with existing situated modes of functioning (people, structures, assumptions and power relationships) to produce results that may be quite different from those that were intended (p. 264).

Hargrave and Van de Ven (2016) make a similar point, citing Merton’s (1936) observations about unintended consequences vis-a-vis the cognitive limitations and biases of managers, their short- versus long-term orientation, and the embeddedness of related contradictions in systems that exacerbate the ability to detect unforeseen circumstances down the road. Also, issues of power are intricately connected to the undiscussability of the contradictory aspects of organizational life, especially when those in power act as if no contradiction is undiscussable (Argyris, 1992).

How to address the interventions in Table 1 with respect to power? It is difficult to be critical of the interventions when the academic literature on paradox, which is substantial, lacks serious attention to power (Grant & Cox, 2017; Fairhurst & Putnam, in press; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). In general, however, the less in depth the intervention, the less likely that paradox interventionists will be able to confront issues of power, especially the defensive routines they may engender (Argyris, 1992), and create an appropriate set of expectations. While the reflexive practice approaches in Table 1 focus attention on issues of participation by reflecting upon who gets invited to talk about issues, when and where, and from what position (Barge et al., 2008), the norms for generative dialogue may belie what occurs in practice. The effect of the intervention then may be to diminish power’s true impact.

How benign are emotions? What is interesting about paradox research is how much of it talks about the role of emotions in paradox without having a good handle on how to really capture its effects (Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). However, Vince and Broussine’s (1996) study of six public service organizations revealed how defenses were triggered by paradoxical emotions (e.g. simultaneous optimism and pessimism) as a result of tensions during organizational change. Several paradox scholars have described the experience of paradox as engendering frustration, anxiety, and defense mechanisms (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Berg, 1987), which can impact how organizational members talk their paradoxical circumstances into being (Poole, 2013).

Interestingly, Table 1 shows that the Helvig Square attempts to deconstruct emotionally packed language to clear the way for dealing with paradox. Forms of reflexive practice characterized by generative dialogue through serious play explore emotional expressions (Beech et al., 2004) or stress positive emotions (e.g. affirmation) associated with paradox and change processes (Barge et al., 2008). Perhaps most interesting are the acknowledgements of negative emotions associated with dialectical inquiry systems, which are premised on a conflict model. Mason (1996, p. 298) acknowledged that,

In our work in organizations, Mitroff and I have witnessed several career-shattering moves made under the guise of carrying out a civil discourse and have had to intercede just prior to the likely outbreak of fisticuffs. (…) Courage, it turns out, is one of the hallmarks of the dialectician.

As Langley and Sloan (2011) suggest, the unintended emotional consequences of dialectical inquiry systems raise questions about why any organization would seriously pursue them. The rest of the interventions tend to say relatively little about emotions, which may signal an overly rational approach to dealing with paradox.

Return paradox to the Wild? Maybe.

Thus far, this essay only strengthens Cunha and Putnam’s (2017) argument that best practice interventions oversimplify paradox. In effect, they neutralize or tame paradox through selecting obvious and single contradictions to the relative neglect of their embeddedness, emphasize a both-and management strategy over others, and downplay issues of power and emotions. What does this say then about the interventions in Table 1 (e.g. paradoxical thinking), in which we could make a strong case for oversimplifying paradox? Must all paradox interventions involve reflection-in-action, as Cunha and Putnam suggest? How should those of us who do research on paradox translate knowledge for change managers?

A paradox lens is not an easy one to grasp because paradoxes are always tied to particular circumstances, and such circumstances are often products of complex organizational conditions, timing, and history that impinge on the willingness of organizations to change (Barge et al., 2008; Huxham & Beech, 2003; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). However, in my view, the message is not to refrain from taming paradox, but knowing when to do so and knowing what else a change manager needs to do under complex organizational change conditions.

For example, one approach is to emphasize three major lessons about paradox that may take some time to apprehend. Those three lessons are: (1) paradox is inevitable; (2) paradoxes are everywhere in the organizational ecosystem (in individuals, dyads, teams, organizations, and institutions); and (3) organizational effectiveness lies in embracing them rather than avoiding them (Stoltzfus, Stohl, & Seibold, 2011). For those newly familiar to this lens and needing some time to process its implications, how else would one introduce paradox except by first communicating simpler versions of the phenomena or its lens? The challenge for change agents, it seems, is to figure out how to become increasingly more complicated in the learning about paradox, for example, moving to reflective practice (i.e. a form of reflection-in-action) once a baseline foundation is introduced.

One of the real challenges in the early introduction of a paradox lens is paradoxical thinking (Smith & Tushman, 2005) or its counterpart, dialectical thinking (Nonaka & Toyama, 2002, 2005). Those who study leadership and paradoxical thinking argue that it is central to navigating a complex world (Link, 2016; Sparr, 2018), but not enough attention has been paid to how one goes about learning it (cf. Lavine, 2014; Smith et al., 2012). Link (2016, p. 14) suggests that this may be because of the range of competencies that are required, beginning with developing a level of comfort with handling inconsistencies and the ability to reflect on one’s decision making tendencies:

Actively learning about different agendas (Smith, Binns, & Tushman, 2010), constantly questioning established skills, systems or values (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Miller, 1992) and carefully considering dissimilar arguments foster a deeper understanding of the different perspectives and reveal issues of importance (Fredberg, 2014) as well as fear and anxiety (Smith & Lewis, 2012).

The micro-skills involved here not only suggest why paradoxical and dialectical thinking are more difficult ways of understanding and communicating, but they also represent a value commitment to satisfying multiple interests. By introducing them in relatively simplistic terms as thinking habits (Farjoun, 2017), change agents have an opportunity to (explicitly or implicitly) clarify values with respect to considering multiple stakeholders during the change process to win necessary buy-in. While some managers may engage in paradoxical or dialectical thinking quite naturally, others will struggle to let go of the either-or unilateralism of their default logic. The point here is to understand the value commitments underlying paradoxical and dialectical thinking, ones that are not just skill components. These value commitments may be why taming paradox is the right lead-in to more complex learnings.

Every organizational change intervention is going to unfold in its own way, and Cunha and Putnam’s (2017) recommendation to adopt one of the forms of reflection-in­ action seems entirely appropriate for many circumstances. Reflection-in-action, as suggested by Table 1’s interventions, involve reflective practice (e.g. serious play, third spaces) and aim to open up processes of social construction through reframing, playing with multiple meanings, challenging boundaries, creating self and relational reflexivity, and so on. The key constructionist learning that things could always be otherwise (Hacking, 1999) is instrumental to managing paradox – precisely because the focus is on exploring, articulating, and operationalizing the situated forms of the tensions at hand. Clearly, a deep dive into context through developing actors’ reflexivity is necessary.

That said, for a long and complex change, I would go much farther than Cunha and Putnam (2017) do by recommending ethnographers and engaged scholars as prime change agents. This is because there is no formal mechanism in the typical reflection-in-action intervention by which to gather the perceptions of other relevant stakeholders, such as customers and suppliers, who could have keen insights into an organization’s paradoxes (Jay, 2013). Change managers could thus partner with an ethnographer who works as an engaged scholar, much as Jay (2013) did.

Ethnographers and engaged scholars are trained to gather insider and outsider perceptions reliably, and they are often experts at reading the effects of organizational change on language, emotions, and bodies. They operate from a safer place in which to identify and, possibly, confront issues of power, as their employment does not depend on the organization’s senior managers (although their research may). They can be instrumental in helping to make sense of change efforts that are continuously unfolding (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), and they can supply much needed perspective (e.g. about vicious cycles) for those in the weeds of change implementation. Finally, for smaller organizations, perhaps the best reason of all is that they do not require the compensation that consultants do!

In considering the interventions in Table 1 then, I subscribe to Argyris (1982), who argued that the most desirable organizational interventions likely depend upon the organization’s stage of learning. They also depend upon the amount of investment an organization wants to make in securing lasting change.

Conclusion

Although the academic and practitioner literatures on planned change tend to have little crossover (Austin & Bartunek, 2003), my review essay is one attempt to correct this disparity. The aforementioned planned change interventions associated with paradox and dialectics are wide-ranging, some of which are simplifying. The message of this essay is that knowing when to tame paradox is key – as is knowing what else a change manager must do under complex organizational conditions.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Linda Putnam and Reflections Editor Jeff Ford for their help reading an earlier version of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Gail T. Fairhurst is a Distinguished University Research Professor of Organizational Communication at the University of Cincinnati. She specializes in organizational and leadership communication processes, including those involving paradox, problem-centered leadership, and framing. She is the author of three books, including Discursive Leadership: In Conversation with Leadership Psychology and The Power of Framing: Challenging the Language of Leadership, which is now being translated into Mandarin. She has also published over 90 articles and chapters in management and communication journals and books. She is a Fellow of the International Communication Association, Distinguished Scholar of the National Communication Association, and Fulbright Scholar. Contact information: [email protected]

Notes

1. Interestingly, their earlier paper was more overtly Hegelian than their later paper, in which they articulated a ‘soft dialectic’ view that is still based in (knowledge as) synthesis, but recognizes the enduring nature of many organizational contradictions (Nonaka & Toyama, 2005).

2. Calori (2002) favours Bergson (1907/1983) and Merleau-Ponty (1968) in characterizing organizational life as a continuous dialectical movement, although Bakhtin (1981, 1986) is a frequent favourite among dialecticians today.