Abstract: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 epistemologi… Show more
“…It has enabled them to move beyond traditional either/or thinking towards more integrative both/and approaches (Schad et al, ; Smith and Lewis, ). Despite this achievement, we share Schad and Bansal’s () opinion that paradox thinking needs greater theoretical complexity to account for interwoven tensions’ intricacies. We acknowledge their systems perspective on paradox (see their Point in this issue), which captures more of paradoxical tensions’ complexity and therefore provides a useful direction for future management and organization research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…We zoom in and explain how organizations move through phases of convergence and divergence to enable a learning spiral, which allows them to better cope with tensions and to ensure sustainability. Our counterpoint ends with an integration of the ideas underlying our process model and those that Schad and Bansal () present in their systems view of paradox. We argue that the point and counterpoint are not only contradictory, but also complementary: Our process perspective shows the transformational journey that organizations take in their quest to move closer to the system perspective’s holistic worldview.…”
Paradox theory enables management research to replace either/or thinking with more integrative both/and approaches. Despite this achievement, greater theoretical complexity is needed to account for paradoxical tensions' intricacies. We use dialectics theory to unpack the learning processes through which organizational members and collectives build their capacity to understand and cope with complex tensions over time. Building on these insights, we develop a paradox process model that resembles a learning spiral, in which organizations move through stages of convergence and divergence. During the convergence stages, they learn about and refine their current worldviews by constantly moving between the tension's poles. During the divergence stages, they move beyond dynamic equilibrium to reach a higher understanding of tensions and their management. While organizations caught in equilibrium are prone to stasis and demise, those that move beyond equilibrium can achieve sustainability.
“…It has enabled them to move beyond traditional either/or thinking towards more integrative both/and approaches (Schad et al, ; Smith and Lewis, ). Despite this achievement, we share Schad and Bansal’s () opinion that paradox thinking needs greater theoretical complexity to account for interwoven tensions’ intricacies. We acknowledge their systems perspective on paradox (see their Point in this issue), which captures more of paradoxical tensions’ complexity and therefore provides a useful direction for future management and organization research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 60%
“…We zoom in and explain how organizations move through phases of convergence and divergence to enable a learning spiral, which allows them to better cope with tensions and to ensure sustainability. Our counterpoint ends with an integration of the ideas underlying our process model and those that Schad and Bansal () present in their systems view of paradox. We argue that the point and counterpoint are not only contradictory, but also complementary: Our process perspective shows the transformational journey that organizations take in their quest to move closer to the system perspective’s holistic worldview.…”
Paradox theory enables management research to replace either/or thinking with more integrative both/and approaches. Despite this achievement, greater theoretical complexity is needed to account for paradoxical tensions' intricacies. We use dialectics theory to unpack the learning processes through which organizational members and collectives build their capacity to understand and cope with complex tensions over time. Building on these insights, we develop a paradox process model that resembles a learning spiral, in which organizations move through stages of convergence and divergence. During the convergence stages, they learn about and refine their current worldviews by constantly moving between the tension's poles. During the divergence stages, they move beyond dynamic equilibrium to reach a higher understanding of tensions and their management. While organizations caught in equilibrium are prone to stasis and demise, those that move beyond equilibrium can achieve sustainability.
“…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.
“…However, prioritizing one output factor (emission reduction) may create new environmental problems, such as those related to the lithium, cobalt, and nickel in batteries. Overconfidence in salient “solutions” can lead to the creation of new problems (Schad & Bansal, ). Managing scarce resources in responding to complex problems requires dealing with certainty and uncertainty, that brings about decisions that might seem inconsistent to outsiders.…”
Section: Inconsistencies That Grand Challenges Creatementioning
Our world increasingly presents grand challenges, such as climate change, poverty, and digitalization. Their inherent complexity creates paradoxical tensions that leaders need to respond to in addressing these challenges. Yet, these tensions also point to the limits of traditional leadership models. While traditional models encourage leaders to make tough choices in the face of competing demands and maintain consistency in these choices, addressing grand challenges requires future leadership to engage competing demands simultaneously. The current article outlines leadership skills to address these competing demands in a “consistently inconsistent” way.
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.
