Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change
Abstract:This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version.
Permanent repository link:
“…For instance, scholars have recently presented paradox theory as a means to address and tame wicked problems, which abound with tensions (Hahn et al, ; Smith and Tracey, ; Smith et al, ). Wicked problems are complex challenges related to scarce environmental and societal resources, such as climate change or economic crises (Camillus, ; George et al, ).…”
Section: Paradox Theory and Complex Realitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such problems include climate change, digitalization, economic crises, and poverty. While scholars recommend that paradox theory be applied to address wicked problems (Smith and Tracey, ; Smith et al, ), the epistemological focus on perceived tensions overlooks the complex, ontological realities that cause them. For example, even if actors deny climate change and, therefore, do not perceive any tension, it does not mean that the climate is not changing.…”
Paradox theory has fundamentally changed how researchers think about organizational tensions by emphasizing their oppositions and their interdependencies. Yet, most paradox studies focus on salient, perceived tensions, ignoring latent, nested tensions and their complex interconnections. This partial view is rooted in the paradox literature focusing on the epistemological realm (actors' perception of tensions) while disregarding the ontological realm (tensions' underlying reality). The focus on the epistemological aspects of the tensions impedes researchers from moving to more intricate insights into paradox, which could help address the realities of complex issues, such as wicked problems. We propose a systems perspective on paradox that discriminates the epistemological understandings from the ontological realities of tensions. By revealing the ontology of tensions, the underlying complexity becomes empirically interpretable. We illustrate the power of this perspective by offering two research strategies that can help researchers and organizations apprehend paradoxes grounded in systems.
“…For instance, scholars have recently presented paradox theory as a means to address and tame wicked problems, which abound with tensions (Hahn et al, ; Smith and Tracey, ; Smith et al, ). Wicked problems are complex challenges related to scarce environmental and societal resources, such as climate change or economic crises (Camillus, ; George et al, ).…”
Section: Paradox Theory and Complex Realitiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such problems include climate change, digitalization, economic crises, and poverty. While scholars recommend that paradox theory be applied to address wicked problems (Smith and Tracey, ; Smith et al, ), the epistemological focus on perceived tensions overlooks the complex, ontological realities that cause them. For example, even if actors deny climate change and, therefore, do not perceive any tension, it does not mean that the climate is not changing.…”
Paradox theory has fundamentally changed how researchers think about organizational tensions by emphasizing their oppositions and their interdependencies. Yet, most paradox studies focus on salient, perceived tensions, ignoring latent, nested tensions and their complex interconnections. This partial view is rooted in the paradox literature focusing on the epistemological realm (actors' perception of tensions) while disregarding the ontological realm (tensions' underlying reality). The focus on the epistemological aspects of the tensions impedes researchers from moving to more intricate insights into paradox, which could help address the realities of complex issues, such as wicked problems. We propose a systems perspective on paradox that discriminates the epistemological understandings from the ontological realities of tensions. By revealing the ontology of tensions, the underlying complexity becomes empirically interpretable. We illustrate the power of this perspective by offering two research strategies that can help researchers and organizations apprehend paradoxes grounded in systems.
“…It has previously been argued that meaningfulness is inherently tensional, a ‘dynamic and contested negotiation’ (Mitra and Buzzanell, , p. 1), where tensions are defined as inescapable ‘practical dilemmas’ (Trethewey and Ashcraft, , p. 32) and are conceptualized as natural and ongoing in the search for meaningful work (Lips‐Wiersma and Wright, ). However, we go beyond this by drawing on the articles in our special issue to suggest instead that meaningfulness is characterized by non‐resolvable paradoxes, or intricate tensional knots (Sheep et al, ; Symon and Whiting) which encourage researchers to explore integrative and holistic approaches to understanding and theorizing complex and contradictory phenomena (Raisch et al, ; Schad and Bansal, ; Smith et al, ). Paradoxical thinking enables researchers to problematize the ‘messiness of meaningful work’ (Mitra and Buzzanell, , p. 4) and address challenging or controversial features of the topic that remain unanswered when framed within existing thinking.Paradox 1: individuals have an innate drive to seek out meaningful work to satisfy their inner needs, yet this same drive can push them to harmful excesses.…”
Section: The Five Paradoxes Of Meaningful Work: Towards a Research Agmentioning
In this introduction to the Journal of Management Studies Special Issue on Meaningful Work, we explain the imperative for a deeper understanding of meaningfulness within the context of the current sociopolitical environment, coupled with the growing use of organizational strategies aimed at ‘managing the soul’. Meaningful work remains a contested topic that has been the subject of attention in a wide range of disciplines. The focus of this Special Issue is the advancement of theory and evidence about the nature, causes, consequences, and processes of meaningful work. We summarize the contributions of each of the seven articles that comprise the Special Issue and, in particular, note their methodological and theoretical plurality. In conclusion, we set forth a future research agenda based on five fundamental paradoxes of meaningful work.
“…First, crossing the chasm between social and traditional enterprise systems has broader implications that extend the discourse on paradoxical tensions (Ciriello et al 2018b;Smith et al 2017). Namely, we offer a novel perspective on how organizations may balance novel digital with traditional systems, flexibility and malleability with stability and control, exploration with exploitation, and agility with discipline approaches.…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
