Paradoxes and Dual Processes: A Review and Synthesis

Abstract

Paradox and dual‐process theories are used by management and organization researchers in studying a variety of phenomena across a wide range of management sub‐fields. Cognition is a focal point of both of these theories. However, despite their growing importance and shared areas of inquiry, these two theories have developed largely in isolation from each other. To address this lack of integration, the authors conducted a review and synthesis of relevant aspects of the paradox and dual‐process literatures. Focusing bidirectionally on how paradox theory informs dual‐process theory and how dual‐process theory informs paradox theory, they highlight the ‘nestedness’ of intuition and analysis in paradox (a paradox within paradoxical thinking). On the basis of the review and synthesis, they identify four themes (epistemological and ontological assumptions in the relationship between intuition and analysis; psychological and psychometric issues in the relationships between intuition and analysis; managers’ experiences of tensions between intuition and analysis; managers’ approaches to tensions between intuition and analysis) and introduce an integrative framework that assimilates these two perspectives and sets out an agenda for future research and implications for management.

Packaging paradoxes in food supply chains: exploring characteristics, underlying reasons and management strategies

“…Unless packaging paradoxes are acknowledged and managed, the strategic value of packaging is not fully utilised (Found and Rich, 2007). Management of paradoxes has received research attention in recent years and is discussed in various research disciplines (Schad et al, 2016;Keller and Sadler-Smith, 2019;Hargrave and van de Ven, 2017), but only to a limited extent in logistics and SCM research (P alsson and Sandberg, 2020). To discuss management strategies for performing paradoxes, we first reiterate that they originate from different incentives for and goals on packaging performance among stakeholders, both internally in a company and externally throughout the supply chain.…”

The Lived Experience of Paradox: How Individuals Navigate Tensions during the Pandemic Crisis

“…To address the multitude of tensions that employees are experiencing during the pandemic, we turn to paradox theory, which provides a metalevel approach to studying tensions across organizational contexts (Schad et al, 2016), including work–life boundaries (Peters & Blomme, 2019). Paradox theory addresses questions about how people perceive tensions (Sharma & Good, 2013), frame tensions (Keller et al, 2017; Miron-Spektor et al, 2011; Pradies et al, 2020), reason about tensions (Keller & Sadler-Smith, 2019), and feel about tensions (Ashforth et al, 2014; Pradies et al, forthcoming; Vince & Broussine, 1996). Paradox theory begins with the premise that employees’ experience with tensions is shaped by both environmental factors and employees’ cognitive and emotional processes (Smith & Lewis, 2011).…”

A Paradox Approach to Societal Tensions during the Pandemic Crisis

“…The emphasis of flexibility in the application of Zhong-Yong balancing dates to early Confucian scholars. For example, Mencius, a discipline of Confucius, pointed out that “执中无权, 犹执一也 (holding the Zhong-Yong principle without flexibility is like holding one pole without balance).” The East Asian philosophical approach therefore treats Zhong-Yong balancing as a meta-cognitive principle (Keller & Chen, 2017; Keller & Sadler-Smith, 2019), where balance itself must be balanced with flexibility.…”