Content area
Full text
"Paradox" appears increasingly in organization studies, often to describe conflicting demands, opposing perspectives. or seemingly illogical findings. This article helps researchers move beyond labeling-to explore paradoxes and contribute insights more in tune with organizational complexity and ambiguity. I first develop a framework that clarifies the nature of paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles, and their management. Using this framework, I then review studies in which paradoxes spurred by change and plurality are investigated. I conclude by outlining strategies for identifying and representing paradox, addressing implications for research.
Paradoxes... seem to smile ironically at our nicely constructed theories with their clear-cut distinctions and point at an unthought-of possibility, a blind spot in oppositional thinking (Ybema, 1996: 40).
"Paradox" denotes contradictory yet interrelated elements-elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously. Over a decade ago, Cameron and Quinn (1988) claimed that by exploring paradox, researchers might move beyond oversimplified and polarized notions to recognize the complexity, diversity, and ambiguity of organizational life. They praised paradox for offering a potentially powerful framework for examining the impacts of plurality and change, aiding understandings of divergent perspectives and disruptive experiences. Since then, in a growing body of texts (e.g., Handy, 1994; Kets de Vries, 1995; Koot, Sabelis, & Ybema, 1996) and studies (e.g., Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Vince & Broussine, 1996), researchers have examined paradox. Such exemplars depict individuals, groups, and organizations as inherently paradoxical, embroiled in tensions and reinforcing cycles at their very core. Abandoning the notion that change is a smooth, linear, and planned journey, these researchers have examined how contradictions both hamper and encourage organizational development.
Increasing technological change, global competition, and workforce diversity reveal and intensify paradox. Managers, for example, are asked to increase efficiency and foster creativity, build individualistic teams, and think globally while acting locally. "It's a paradox," however, is rapidly becoming the management cliche of our time-overused and underspecified (Handy, 1994). Reviewing studies from 1990 to 1997, Davis, Maranville, and Obloj (1997) found the term used in over 300 major publications. Most often, researchers use paradox to describe conflicting demands, opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings. Yet, labeling paradox does not necessarily foster understanding. Bouchikhi (1998) claims that while organization researchers continue to unveil...