Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing

Abstract

As organizational environments become more global, dynamic, and competitive, contradictory demands intensify. To understand and explain such tensions, academics and practitioners are increasingly adopting a paradox lens. We review the paradox literature, categorizing types and highlighting fundamental debates. We then present a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, which depicts how cyclical responses to paradoxical tensions enable sustainability-peak performance in the present that enables success in the future. This review and the model provide the foundation of a theory of paradox.

Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development

“…In contrast, organizational scholars increasingly adopt a paradox approach, depicting such competing demands as contradictory yet interdependent, and exploring approaches to engaging such complex tensions (Clegg, Cunha, and Cunha, 2002;Lewis, 2000). Scholars have begun to articulate a theory of paradox, offering a common language, assumptions, and boundary conditions (Smith and Lewis, 2011). This lens continues to attract scholars from across disciplinary fields, levels of analysis, and methods Schad et al, 2016), engaging scholars from diverse fields in conversations on a shared objectiveunderstanding organizational tensions and their management better.…”

“…Smith and Lewis (2011) advanced this perspective toward a theory of paradox. They positioned paradox theory as a way to capture and conceptualize tensions that are both contradictory and interdependent.…”

Editor, Executive and Entrepreneur

“…Senior executives, in particular, are regarded as playing an important role in helping organizations to attend to contradictory demands and to foster ambidexterity (see, for example, Birkinshaw & Gupta, 2013;Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004;Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling, & Veiga, 2006;O'Reilly & Tushman, 2011;Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008;Smith & Tushman, 2005). Rather than attempting to align and resolve the conflicting demands of exploration and exploitation, executive leaders need to embrace divergence and build the capacity to attend simultaneously to competing and conflicting demands (Smith & Lewis, 2011), combining the attributes of rigorous cost cutters and of freethinking entrepreneurs (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2013;Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996).…”

“…Over the past decade, newspaper readers and advertisers have been migrating to digital media, leaving the industry in a constant state of change. Smith and Lewis (2011), in their study of strategic paradoxes, noted that such increased environmental dynamism may encourage leaders to push the boundaries of both explorative and exploitative strategies. The strategic tensions become more prominent in "complex settings" where there are overlapping technological paradigms.…”

“…As entrepreneurs, they have to outsmart the Silicon Valley start-ups to build new digital business opportunities that disrupt their existing print businesses. In sum, industry leaders are charged with making choices and trade-offs among competing, conflicting, and often paradoxical strategies (Jansen, Vera, & Crossan, 2009;March, 1991;Smith et al, 2010;Smith & Lewis, 2011;Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996).…”