The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing

Abstract

A substantial body of literature on new forms of organizing has forecast the end of bureaucracy. More recent empirical studies, however, indicate that high-performing organizations are adopting dual forms of organizing in which the controllability advantages associated with traditional forms work to complement and support the responsiveness attributes of new forms of organizing. The paradox is that, if organizations discard the key planning, co-ordinating and direction-setting mechanisms of traditional forms of organizing, they also remove the stabilizing dimensions of organizational form that are essential in periods of uncertainty and change. The challenge for organizations lies in learning how to manage the tensions or dualities between traditional and new forms of organizing, a process demanding the arbitration of continuity and change. This paper explores the concept of dualities and its salience in the management of organizing forms. First, the nature of dualities is explained; secondly, a set of characteristics is developed to describe the behaviour of dualities; and thirdly, suggestions are presented for arbitrating the tensions that exist in organizing form dualities. These three contributions are relevant because they signal the route to the effective creation and management of organizing form dualities, the benefit of which is the constructive combination of dynamic capabilities (underpinning innovation and responsiveness, the hallmarks of new forms of organizing) and operational capabilities (underpinning stability and efficiency, the hallmarks of traditional forms of organizing).

Functions of Dysfunction

“…Dualities have at least five characteristics (Hedberg, Nystrom, and Starbuck, 1976;Evans and Doz, 1992;Sánchez-Runde and Pettigrew, 2003;Graetz and Smith, 2008;Farjoun, 2010;Smith and Lewis, 2011 can transcend the opposition to, in effect, "have it both ways" (e.g., Lewis, 2000;Seo et al, 2004;Farjoun, 2010). For example, research on organizational ambidexterity suggests that organizations can simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008;Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang, 2009).…”

“…Conversely, oppositional tendencies such as honesty-dishonesty and support-abuse are not considered in the dualities literature probably because the absence of a necessary minimal threshold for the negative quality makes them far easier to address. Further, it is likely this notion of a minimal threshold that underlies frequent prescriptions in the literature for "dynamic balance" or "dynamic equilibrium" between oppositional tendencies (Evans and Doz, 1992;Sánchez-Runde and Pettigrew, 2003;Graetz and Smith, 2008;Smith and Lewis, 2011).…”

“…For example, Lewis (2000: 25) defines paradox as "contradictory yet interrelated elements -elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously. " Following Farjoun (2010: 204), a key difference for our purposes here is that formulations of paradox often appear to view the elements as "necessarily antithetical" or "mutually exclusive" (Cameron and Quinn, 1988: 2), whereas, as suggested by Graetz and Smith's (2008) definition quoted above, formulations of duality often appear to view the elements as "ostensibly" contradictory or "opposites that exist within a unified whole" (Smith and Lewis, 2011: 387). The notions of ostensible contradiction and a unified whole provide more conceptual space for exploring how the elements may in fact be complementary (Evans and Doz, 1992;Johnston and Selsky, 2006).…”

“…Unfortunately, as Graetz and Smith (2008) note, the specific dynamics through which dualities actually play out and are, hopefully, managed are not well understood. To be sure, there are excellent theoretical frameworks, particularly those by Smith and Berg (1987) and Lewis (2000), that describe certain aspects of those dynamics; excellent empirical studies that document how a singular event or issue played out (e.g., Gilbert, 2006;Barge, Lee, Maddux, Nabring, and Townsend, 2008); and excellent conceptual and empirical papers that provide a more prescriptive stance on how dualities can be managed (e.g., Seo et al, 2004;Lüscher and Lewis, 2008;Battilana and Dorado, 2010 Thus, the purpose of this paper is to address these three questions by developing a more process-oriented theory of dualities, using a longitudinal ethnography.…”

“…Conversely, oppositional tendencies such as honesty-dishonesty and support-abuse are not considered in the dualities literature probably because the absence of a necessary minimal threshold for the negative quality makes them far easier to address. Further, it is likely this notion of a minimal threshold that underlies frequent prescriptions in the literature for "dynamic balance" or "dynamic equilibrium" between oppositional tendencies (Evans and Doz, 1992;Sánchez-Runde and Pettigrew, 2003;Graetz and Smith, 2008;Smith and Lewis, 2011).Fourth, as discussed, given the simultaneous presence of interdependent, oppositional 8 tendencies, dualities are characterized by tension (Evans, Pucik, and Barsoux, 2002;Seo et al, 2004). Indeed, if each tendency is affiliated with distinct actors such as organizational subunits or hierarchical levels, the tendencies may be actively juxtaposed.…”