Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Scholars increasingly turn to paradox theory to offer insight into our world’s greatest challenges. Yet to contribute to radical strategy theorizing concerning those challenges and avoid premature convergence on a narrow set of ideas, paradox scholars need new insights. We turn to early 20th century scholar and activist Mary Parker Follett. We highlight the alignment between Follett’s philosophy and contemporary paradox theory, showing that the two approaches are well-suited traveling companions. Drawing on these similarities, we then explore how Follett’s novel insights emphasize “what is” rather than “what may be” and in doing so challenge and expand on paradox theory. Specifically, these ideas help paradox theory reimagining of organizations and strategizing by focusing on (1) how the micro constructs the macro; (2) possibilities for meaningful change; and (3) participatory interactions. By doing so, we argue that Follett pushes paradox scholars to contribute to more radical strategy theorizing.

Keywords

conflict and cooperation exploration/exploitation historical analysis Mary Parker Follett paradox power and politics research methods strategy process

Some people tell me . . . that I am talking of what ought to be instead of what is. But indeed I am not; I am talking neither of what is . . . nor what ought to be merely, but of what perhaps may be. (Follett, 1995 [1925]: 71)

Scholars turn to paradox theory to understand the complex, challenging, and often chaotic experiences of strategizing and organizing (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Schad et al., 2016; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Defining paradoxes as persistent contradictions between interdependent elements (Schad et al., 2016), paradox theory explores the nature and navigation of contradictory demands (Clegg et al., 2002; Farjoun, 2010; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Paradox theory offers insights for understanding global strategic challenges such as environmental instability (Jarzabkowski et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2014); climate crises (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Slawinski and Bansal, 2015; Williams et al., 2021); poverty and inequality (Sharma and Bansal, 2017; Smith and Besharov, 2019); and the global pandemic (Keller et al., 2021).

To address these mounting challenges more effectively, paradox theory must advance and develop. First, scholars have called for more divergent thinking about the nature and navigation of paradoxes. In a recent point and counterpoint discussion within Strategic Organization, Schad et al. (2019) argued that theory development benefits from both “centripetal forces [that] define and buffer a conceptual core and centrifugal forces [that] challeng[e] the core and extend its boundaries” (p.107). Centripetal forces have enabled paradox theory to converge toward shared understandings of core theoretical building blocks, while centrifugal forces have drawn from a broad range of ideas in service of extending core ideas. In that same Strategic Organization discussion, Cunha and Putnam (2019) call for more centrifugal divergent perspectives to ensure novel advances and avoid premature convergence on a narrow set of ideas. Second, amid global crises such as climate change, inequality, and pandemics strategy scholars need radical theorizing that advances beyond business-as-usual approaches. In a separate discussion in Strategic Organization scholars called for more radical strategy theorizing that invites rethinking theories, methods, and scholarly outputs to develop impactful insights in response to critical issues such as sustainability (Jarzabkowski et al., 2021) and inequality (Bapuji and Neville, 2015; Feldman and Pentland, 2022). For paradox theory to contribute to radical strategy theorizing, scholars need new insights.

In response, in this essay, we look back to look forward. We follow the approach of others who have advanced paradox theory by reconnecting with foundational thinkers within and outside of organizational scholarship (e.g. Badham, 2017; Seidl et al., 2021; Zundel et al., 2021). Specifically, we explore the insights of Mary Parker Follett. Follett’s insights share philosophical roots with paradox theory. While she wrote in the early 20th century, her insights were provocative and, as some scholars have claimed, prophetic (Drucker, 1995), pushing contemporary paradox theory in radical directions to better address our most pressing global challenges.

In this article, we first establish how Follett and contemporary paradox theory are well-aligned traveling companions¹ as paradox theory resonates with four foundations of Follett’s philosophy—pragmatism, holism, process, and humanism. We identify how Follett’s insights extend paradox theory toward more radical strategy theorizing to better address our greatest societal challenges. We highlight three advances from Follett’s insights in this regard by exploring (1) how the micro constructs the macro; (2) possibilities for meaningful change; and (3) participatory interactions. This invites paradox scholars to join Follett in what she described as a move from thinking about “what is”—a description of reality, to “what may be”—an imagining of possibility that she believed we could all live into. We argue that this shift can help offer a reimagining of how we organize and strategize through tension that moves beyond “business as usual” approaches to respond to the pressing social challenges of our time (Jarzabkowski et al., 2021; Nyberg and Wright, 2022).

Mary Parker Follett and paradox theory: traveling companions

[Our] outlook is narrowed, our activity is restricted, our chances of business success largely diminished when our thinking is constrained within the limits of what has been called an either-or situation We should never let ourselves to be bullied by an either-or (Follett, 1995 [1925]: 86)

Too often actors impose an either/or choice to treat tensions as dilemmas that could more fruitfully be approached from a both/and perspective (Smith and Lewis, 2011: 387)

At an Academy of Management Annual Meeting in Boston one of us slipped away from the conference bustle to the quiet tranquility of Radcliffe College’s Schlesinger Library. Established in 1879, the women’s liberal arts college educated women restricted from attending neighboring Harvard University. The library holds the research notes of Mary Parker Follett’s biographer, Joan C. Tonn (2003); a rare treasure given that Follett destroyed much of her own materials and instructed others to do the same following her death.

Follett was a scholar and activist who drew inspiration from an eclectic array of influences (Tonn, 2003); including Gestalt theory (Stout and Staton, 2011), American pragmatism (Ansell, 2009; Snider, 1998), Hegelian dialectics (O’Connor, 2000), psychoanalysis (Stout and Love, 2017), and process theory (Stout et al., 2011). Other scholars have unpacked and drawn on her ideas more broadly (O’Connor, 2000; Snider, 1998; Stout and Love, 2017). For example, management scholars described her ideas as “superbly relevant” (Drucker, 1995; Fox and Urwick, 1973) and have applied her thinking to domains within strategy and organizational research (e.g. Barclay, 2005; Schilling, 2000) in varied ways at different times (Bednarek et al., 2020; Calás and Smircich, 1996; Feldheim, 2003).

As scholars of paradox, we were at the library as we wanted to better understand how Follet’s ideas resonate and expand contemporary paradox theory. As the two quotes at the beginning of this section illustrate, Follett’s insights are deeply paradoxical—emphasizing addressing contradictory, yet interdependent tensions via a both/and approach. Paradox scholars have increasingly cited Follett as an early inspiration (Berti et al., 2021; Smith and Lewis, 2011, 2022; Smith et al., 2017), noting how her ideas are distinct from functionalist and contingency theory approaches to organizations (Snider, 1998). Yet to date, most paradox scholarship has only engaged with Follett’s ideas through cursory quotes or references. In this essay, we seek deeper understanding, a discussion that we believe is long overdue. We link paradox theory with four central reinforcing elements of Follett’s philosophy—pragmatism, holism, process, and humanism (O’Connor, 2000; Snider, 1998; Stout and Love, 2017; Stout and Staton, 2011).

Pragmatism: finding what may be in real-life experiences

As this article’s starting quotation notes, people saw Follett’s ideas as idealized (Follett, 1995 [1925]; Snider, 1998). Yet, she grounded her understanding of what “may be” in pragmatic experiences.

Follett was born in Quincey, Massachusetts in 1868, amid the reverberating repercussions of the Industrial Revolution. People had moved away from artisanal and agricultural work to become employees within large factories. This demographic shift triggered sociological challenges such as harsh working conditions, limited wages, and ongoing labor disputes (e.g. Follett, 1995 [1924]). Joining with other politicians, activists, and scholars of the so-called “Progressive Era,” Follett sought approaches to address these core challenges (Graham, 1995; Tonn, 2003), but did so in a way that neither simplified nor sanitized their complexity.

Follett often had an experiential front row seat to these challenges. She attended Radcliffe College in Boston and University of Cambridge and soon after joined the Roxbury Neighborhood House social work staff in a low-income Boston neighborhood. This experience informed her thinking about social structures that supported connection and community, leading her to successfully advocate nationally to repurpose school buildings as afternoon and evening community centers (Graham, 1995; Stout and Love, 2017; Tonn, 2003). Several years later, she mediated management-union disputes which exposed her to labor conflicts and developed her thinking further about conflict and mediation. She went on to deliver prestigious lectures to the Bureau of Personnel Administration and London School of Economics (see: Metcalf and Urwick, 2004 [1940]), in which she grappled with tensions and possibilities in business and management (Tonn, 2003).

Paradox theory shares with Follett an aspirational vision that has also been criticized for being idealistic (Berti and Simpson, 2021; Cunha and Putnam, 2019). Yet, as with Follett, these idealist abstractions are grounded in critical contemporary issues. In 1994, Charles Handy (1994) noted how our rapidly changing society surfaced ongoing clashes between old and new, past and future, tradition and modernization, creation and destruction, leaving us in an “Age of Paradox.” Clegg et al. (2002) further recognized the rise of paradox as a response to our current concerns (also see: Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Today, leaders are increasingly calling for more paradoxical approaches to address complex organizational phenomena (e.g. Polman and Winston, 2021; Said Business School and Heidrick & Struggles, 2015; Smith and Lewis, 2022), including to understand complex societal challenges, such as the planetary emergency (e.g. Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2021), sustainability (e.g. Hahn et al., 2014), inequality (Sharma and Bansal, 2017; Smith and Besharov, 2019) or the COVID-10 pandemic (see e.g. Keller et al., 2021). Like Follett, the seemingly abstracted and idealized insights of paradox theory are grounded in a desire to understand and work though the most pressing issues of the day.

Holism: creative integration across the total situation

Follett’s writings depict the inherent unity between opposing elements. She rejects reductionist binaries such as school and community, management and labor, and business and society. Instead, she saw the holistic dynamic relationality between discrete parts as a possibility for a more integrated union. She sought to bring together opposing ideas into a novel creative integration (Follett, 1924).

For Follett, conflict or tension is an inherent feature of life; neither good nor bad. She elucidated this idea with the metaphor of friction, the force that emerges when two objects come into contact. She notes, “The friction between the driving wheel of the locomotive and the track is necessary to haul the train. All polishing is done by friction. The music of the violin we get by friction” (Follett, 1995 [1925]: 68) . The challenge is not if we faced tensions, but how we do so. Rather than avoiding conflict, Follett suggested using it to spur a creative experience and surface new possibilities through integration wherein “both desires have found a place, that neither side has had to sacrifice anything” (Follett, 1995[1925]: 69).

Follett further embraces holism, noting that each moment is a relational integration between multiple parts in ongoing interaction over time (Mendenhall et al., 2000; Parker, 1984). She describes this holistic reality as the total situation:

It is the totality of all the interweaving relationships relevant to a given time and place that constitutes the situation [. . .] We are never dealing merely with the circular response relating between this part and that part, but also with all the other relating that apply to both of them while they are interacting. (Fox, 1968: 523)

Conflict experienced within a moment is influenced by the interactions that led to those moments, as well as the wider context within which that interaction occurs. When attempting integration of specific tensions, Follett, therefore, argued that we need to appreciate the distinct desires of each party within the broader context of this total situation.

Paradox theory similarly emphasizes holism (Clegg et al., 2002): a paradox is two opposing ideas or poles that define and reinforce one another in an ongoing integrated relationship (Schad et al., 2016). As Follett did, scholars of paradox highlight the value of juxtaposing opposites toward a generative creative outcome (Miron-Spektor et al., 2022). To do so, both Follett and paradox theory talk about moving away from either/or thinking (Bednarek et al., 2017; Lewis, 2000; Miron-Spektor and Erez, 2017; Miron-Spektor et al., 2022; Smith and Lewis, 2022). Reflective of Follett’s inclusion of the total situation, paradox theory highlights paradoxes as inherent, though sometimes latent, in a system (Hahn and Knight, 2021; Smith and Lewis, 2011), or even the multiple paradoxes across interorganizational systems (Jarzabkowski et al., 2019, 2022; Schad and Bansal, 2018). In short, there is a shared focus on embracing the integrative possibilities of interdependent contradictions within organizational life, whether in relation to challenges such as the labor conflict of Follett’s time or climate change of our own.

Process: constant flux through circular relating

Follett understood reality as comprised of ongoing dynamic relationships rather than reified entities (Ansell, 2009; Stout and Staton, 2011). Even as she sought holism, she depicted such integration as fleeting:

The most important thing to remember about unity is—that there is no such thing. There is only unifying. You cannot get unity and expect it to last a day—or five minutes. (Follett, 1995a: 199).

This processual flux is encapsulated in her concept of circular relating (Follett, 1995 [1924]). She noted that most people conceive of a linear unidirectional relationship between a stimulus and response. Follett instead suggested that relationships reflect the more complex quality of their ongoing interactions over time: “I never react to you, but rather ‘I-plus-the interweaving between you and me meeting you plus the interweaving between you and me, etc’ (Follett, 1995[1924]: 42). Indeed, the possibility for creative integration is inherent in this concept of circular relating. Wherein two individuals with different agendas (such as labor and management) or two contradictory forces (such as society and the individual) define and change each other through their interaction over time to become a more unified whole. Such circular relating also involves the ongoing relationship between individuals and the environment—both creating the ‘total situation” and being constantly informed by it (Mendenhall et al., 2000). As she notes, “the interweaving which is changing both actors and creating constantly new situations should be the study of the student of social science” (Follet, 1995[1924]: 46). Taken together, holism and process approaches define for Follett a world of change and continuous relating rather than finished products.

Scholars of paradox also emphasize dynamism and process. While scholars note that paradoxes persist over time, they do so through evolving interrelationships (Smith and Lewis, 2022). Paradox scholars have explored the dynamic equilibrium that brings opposing poles into relationship (Smith, 2014; Smith and Lewis, 2011) and unpacked the moment-by-moment flux of response to tension (Jarzabowski and Lê, 2017). Such approaches conceptualize any integration of paradoxical poles as fleeting (Bednarek et al., 2017), resulting in persistent cyclical relationships between opposing forces (Cunha and Putnam, 2019; Lê and Bednarek, 2017; Lewis, 2000; Schad et al., 2016; Tsoukas and Cunha, 2017).

Humanism: centering the social individual

Follett centers human beings and their interactions, offering what we and others have labeled a humanist approach to social and organizational phenomena (Melé, 2003; Snider, 1998; Stout and Love, 2017). She explores how human interactions construct social contexts, reinforcing the relationality between individuals and society as well as psychology and sociology. As a result, she identifies the core unit of analysis as the “social individual”:

Early psychology was based on the study of the ‘individual’; early sociology was based on the study of ‘society’. But there is no such thing as the ‘individual’, there is no such thing as ‘society’; there is only the group-unit, the social individual. . .. [We need to] focus its attention on their interrelatings (Follett, 1918: 21).

As part of this focus on human interrelating, Follett emphasized participatory democracy and power-with rather than power-over (Follett, 1918, 1924). For Follett, human potential and creativity emerge through participatory interaction (O’Connor, 2020). Integration entails more than a transfer of power to employees by, for example, inviting a vote on a proposal. Rather, it involves enabling active participation (Eylon, 1998; Sethi, 1962). As she states, “Some people want to give the workman a share in carrying out the purpose of the plant and do not see that that involves a share in creating the purpose of the plant” (Follett, 1995 [1924]: 56). Democratic and participatory means of interrelating is important as diversity in perspectives offers a source of creative expansion of possibilities for social systems, enabling “fresh possibilities for the human soul” (Follett, 1924: 130). Pragmatically, such fresh possibilities may be expressed in things like a “new tariff laws or shorter hours or work or cooperative banks or whatever it may be” (Follett, 1924: 130). In this way, encouraging participatory power-with dynamics invites a broad range of diverse insights, which fosters the creative friction so central to Follett’s definition of integration.

Paradox theory similarly invites the creative human experience into our theories of organizations to capture the “complexity, diversity and ambiguity of organizational life” (Lewis, 2000: 760; Quinn and Cameron, 1988). Paradox theory shifts toward understanding the emotional (Hatch and Erhlich, 1993; Vince and Broussine, 1996), absurd (Badham, 2017; Lewis, 2000), and creative (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011) tapestry of being human within organizations. In the 2000s, when strategy research emphasized financial performance, paradox theory asked new questions such as the role of humor and play in navigating strategic change (Beech et al., 2004; Jarzabowski and Lê, 2017) and highlighted the importance of social objectives (Smith et al., 2014). Like Follett’s work, paradox theory, thus, explores the efficient performance of organizations alongside and in relation to other metrics of our humanity such as the need for scientists to discover (Bednarek et al., 2017); artists to create (Miron-Spektor and Erez, 2017) and employees to feel fulfilled and safe (Aust et al., 2015).

Paradox theory: a Follett inspired agenda of what “may be”

Drawing on the idea of radical strategic theorizing (Jarzabkowski et al., 2021), we drawn on Follett’s as inspiration for novel approaches to paradox theory that can help address some of our greatest global challenges. We focus on the implications of Follett’s philosophy to shift our understanding within paradox theory by exploring (1) how the micro constructs the macro; (2) possibilities for meaningful change; and (3) participatory interactions. For Follett, this represents a coherent interrelated view of social phenomena rather than each of these inspirations being discrete or separate. Collectively such an emphasis shifts paradox theorizing from describing “what is” to fostering greater sensitivity to “what may be” beyond business-as-usual strategic paradoxes and responses to them.

How the micro constructs the macro?

Follett’s emphasis on human interactions over time invites paradox scholars to further unpack how micro engagement informs macro phenomena. Early paradox scholarship in organizational theory applied to the organizational level (see: Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). Studies emphasized strategic paradoxes for organizations and identified responses from leaders and organizational structures (see e.g. Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Luscher and Lewis, 2008; Smith, 2014). More recently, organizational scholars have returned to the roots of paradox theorizing at the individual (i.e. Hampden-Turner, 1982; Vince and Broussine, 1996), group (i.e. Smith and Berg, 1987) and interrelational (i.e. Putnam, 1986) levels to emphasize individual cognition and emotion (i.e. Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Pradies, 2022), interrelational discourse (i.e. Fairhurst and Putnam, 2019) and group interactions (i.e. Miron-Spektor et al., 2022). Paradox scholars have also discussed how paradoxes are nested across levels, such that tensions that emerge at one level show up in different ways at another level, either aligned across levels (Pradies, 2022) or triggering disparate tensions across them (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013).

Follett’s ideas push paradox scholars to advance these arguments about multi-level theorizing and develop a deeper understanding of the processes by which individual interactions constitute social structures (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Lê and Bednarek, 2017). She encourages continued research that explores individual interactions (discursive, material, conversational, etc.) as a source of paradox emergence and evolution (see Fairhurst and Putnam, 2019; Putnam et al., 2016). She, thus, invites paradox scholars to go beyond recognizing micro-level phenomena as independent from the context or from noticing nested paradoxes across levels to instead understand how the macro level and systemic paradoxes are not distinct from, but rather comprised of, individuals in interaction with one another over time. For example, rather than viewing the paradox of exploration and exploitation as surfacing at the level of strategy, leadership, and individual experiences (i.e. Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009), Follett inspires paradox scholars to explore how the interrelationships between individuals surface tensions between exploration and exploitation for leaders and the organization, collapsing the micro and macro distinctions (Lê and Bednarek, 2017). Future research could unpack these claims in greater depth, seeking to understand how interactions allow different paradoxes to emerge and evolve to define organizational and larger systems and structures. Under what conditions of dialogical human interactions do different paradoxes and different systems flounder or flourish (see e.g. Huq et al., 2017; Jay, 2013; Seidl et al., 2021)?

Two examples illustrate how Follet’s ideas can advance multi-level theorizing in paradox theory to apply to core strategic challenges. Recently, over 50 scholars explored how paradox theory informed our experience of the global pandemic (e.g. Keller et al., 2021; Pradies et al., 2021). Some scholars considered work–life tensions for individuals (See Bednarek and Le in Pradies et al., 2021) while others sought to understand human resources practices (see Aust in Pradies et al., 2021). Follett would argue that we cannot draw sharp distinctions between the two in this way. Instead, Follett would encourage reframing the conversation to unpack how human interactions around work-life tensions informed human resource practices in response to the pandemic, even as those human resources practices defined interactions around work-life tensions. Understanding how individuals constitute the Human Resource system could offer insight into possibilities for reimagining existing paradoxes within that system through new ways of interacting, in both positive and negative ways.

Second, Jarzabkowski et al. (2022) recently explored how the interorganizational global work of financing disaster response in less developed countries unfolded as a process of paradox knotting. The interactions between different types of actors helped explain how paradoxes emerged and evolved within a global interorganizational system. Follett’s focus on human interrelating would advance this work, continuing to more closely explore how the knotted paradoxes at the systemic level shift due to specific power-dynamics, discourse, and emotions of these interactions. For example, Follett would encourage a deeper exploration of the power-dynamics inherent in interactions between international development actors, industry actors, and government actors to understand what paradoxes ultimately defined the system and how they might be changed. There is also potential for paradox scholars to focus more specifically on the emergence of such paradoxes. That is, how one system-wide paradox knot emerged in the first place (versus other possibilities) due to these micro interactions.

In this way, Follett pushes paradox theory to turn its attention to “what may be” by developing new insight into how different forms of human micro interaction can create new more enabling systems.

Question 1 for future paradox research: How do micro interactions enact systemic paradoxes and collective responses to them including in ways that move beyond existing business-as-usual systems to allow different paradoxes and systems to flourish?

Possibilities for meaningful change

Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher from the 5th Century BCE, noted that no man [sic] ever steps in the same river twice. The river changes from moment to moment as does the person. Follett offers similar insight into a world in constant flux, mostly as a function of ongoing human interactions. As she noted, “we cannot watch strikers and then mill-owners,” but instead need to understand how strikers inform mill-owners who further inform strikers who are already informed by mill-owners rather than separate from them. As part of this paradoxical poles such as “labor” and “capital” similarly change in the flow of their interrelating: “trade unionism is not today a response to capitalism, it is a response to the relation between itself and capitalism” (Follett, 1995 [1924]: 46). In short, for Follett, integration requires more than clever solutions that manage to appeal to divergent groups. It requires the possibility of transformation of paradoxical poles and the actors involved because of that engagement with the interdependent divergent other. Follett, thus, inspires paradox scholars to advance the notion of ongoing change of paradox poles, and how interactions across individuals and around tensions inform that evolution.

Future studies could further explore how two paradoxical poles are not distinct but a dynamic interaction wherein they change in relation to the other. Paradox scholars have paid much attention to dynamic responses to paradox but have largely treated paradoxical poles themselves as “reified,” separate from each other and unchanging (Cunha and Putnam, 2019). Follett encourages us to view paradoxical poles as relationalities, rather than discrete entities, paying attention to how human interactions shift and blur the distinctions between paradoxical poles: “[T]he only reality is the relating of one to the other which creates both” (Follett, 1918: 61). Consider the exploration and exploitation paradox which scholars usually depict as set and separate entities. Exploitation may refer to a specific existing product, service, or process, while exploration refers to a novel innovation (e.g. Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009; Smith, 2014). Follett inspires us to move beyond understanding exploitation as distinct from exploration, to focus on how within micro interactions exploration surfaces in response to exploitation, while exploitation is a response to the exploratory response, and so on. The empirical task involves following this back-and-forth dynamic within the interactions between actors (Snider, 1998). Future studies can thus illuminate the nuances of how paradoxes, not just the strategic responses to them, are constantly changing within these everyday interactions in minor and in large ways. This is aligned with processual approaches that challenge the very notion of separate poles (Cunha and Putnam, 2019), allowing paradox scholars to more deeply conceptualize and operationalize the notion of independence (Jarzabkowski et al., 2018).

Follett also pushes paradox scholars to study how actors themselves change as part of engaging with paradox. Exploring circular relating means moving beyond seeing people as unchanging carriers of different paradoxical poles. Instead, Follett views interactions between actors as co-creating paradox as well as each other (Snider, 1998). Actors working through paradoxes are themselves meaningfully changed as part of these interactions (Kolb et al., 1996). For example, in relation to poverty alleviation, Sharma and Bansal (2017) explore interactions between NGO and private firm actors, each with different priorities in terms of profit-social goals. Follett invites paradox scholars to explore how such industry and development actors might transform due to tension-laden interactions over the social-business paradox, and how actors changing (or failing to change) informs ongoing dynamics in the system. For example, business-oriented actors may change because of their interaction with the NGO actors and such transformation can generate possibilities for meaningful and widespread integration.

Follett inspires paradox scholars to better understand how both paradoxes and actors change due to ongoing human interactions. The radical strategy theorizing required to move us beyond business-as-usual to address large strategic challenges requires such a deep understanding of the possibilities of transforming core paradoxes, like business-social, and the actors that enact them.

Question 2a for future paradox research: How do paradoxes, and their poles, change within the flow of human interactions effectively blurring the distinctions between those poles?

Question 2b for future paradox research: How do actors change within paradox–laden interactions with others and how is this enabling of new integrative possibilities?

Participatory interactions

Follett invites rich insight into power–laden interactions when constructing and navigating paradox. Paradox scholars have begun to discuss how the difficulties and absurdities of navigating paradox are often pushed down to individuals and employees, and how tension-laden systems can diminish individuals who become burdened by its demands (Berti and Simpson, 2021; Gaim et al., 2021). Follett’s humanism offers an approach to progress these initial conversations through a focus on power-laden interactions and the integrative creativity possible with participatory power-with dynamics.

First, Follett’s humanistic inspiration highlights the importance of attention to the power dynamics within micro interactions. Follett does not ignore the systemic structures or hierarchies, as the participatory power-with interactions she envisages depend on enabling structures. However, she argues that we also cannot have “free” systems without individuals interacting in ways that grow their power and freedom (O’Connor, 2000). Expanding our focus within paradox theory beyond existing attention to the power inherent in organizational hierarchy (Berti and Simpson, 2021; Gaim et al., 2021), different social identities (race, gender, class, etc.) are power-laden and need to be explored within paradox theory. These differences drive variations in the influence of paradoxical poles. For example, Huq et al. (2017) depict how physicians have more power in a hospital system than social workers and therefore medical interventions for patients are more frequent than complementary behavioral/ social therapeutic ones. Follett demands paradox scholars pay more attention to how power flows within these micro-interactions. We argue that such Follet-inspired greater sensitivity to power-laden interactions is essential for understanding the paradoxical dynamics associated with grand strategic challenges such as #METOO; #BlackLivesMatters, abortion, and the inequality inherent in the production versus the impact of the climate crisis.

Second, Follett’s insights also shift our focus from the “dark side” of paradox to explore the inclusive possibilities inherent in genuinely integrative interaction. For Follett, creative possibilities depend on expanding participation and power-with interactions:

What I have called legitimate power is. . . the basis for integration. If your business is so organized that you can influence a co-manager while he is influencing you, so organized that a workman has an opportunity of influencing you as you have of influence him; if there is an interactive influence going on all the time between you, power-with may be built up. (Follett, 1995b: 107)

In short, expanding who is included in the construction and navigation of paradox unleashes the creative possibilities of integration (O’Connor, 2000). Indeed, Huq et al. (2017) find that engaging paradox in a way that is mindful of power dynamics can invite opportunities to surface underrepresented viewpoints in service of the more integrative whole. Similarly, enabling participation from indigenous actors in defining the paradox of climate change is likely critically important to enable genuinely creative integrative solutions. Drawing on these insights, paradox scholars can develop an understanding of the “what may be” of participatory democratic interactions when it comes to navigating paradox. This includes as a potential anecdote to an increasingly polarized approach to large-scale strategic challenges (also see: Gaim and Clegg, 2021). Future research can explore the potential of paradox when democratic power-with interactions are centered.

The above prompts a reconsideration of existing paradox studies and our definitions of integrating (Smith, 2014; Smith and Lewis, 2011), both-and solutions (Sharma and Bansal, 2017), transcendence (Bednarek et al., 2017), synthesis (Clegg et al., 2002), the creativity inherent in paradox (Miron-Spektor and Erez, 2017) and so on. Without attention to participatory power-with dynamics and who is included and excluded, we risk describing integrative veneers rather than genuinely integrative interactions (Gaim et al., 2021). For instance, Bednarek et al. (2017) explored how scientists integrated contradictory science-excellence and commercial-impact goals. Yet, there was no focus on the power dynamics within the interactions between scientists (usually employees) and interests from investors and/or government (who held the “purse strings”). Indeed, many scientists were excluded from this “new” paradoxical-laden system that centralized the interdependence between science excellence and economic impact. Surprisingly, the data for this study did include a case where explicitly democratic dynamics were evident. However, indicative of the fact that paradox research has rarely centered power, the study failed to analyze data around whether variation in participatory power dynamics between the organizational cases enabled or constrained integrative actions. Follet’s humanistic locus would have imbued sensitivity to power dynamics within the very definition of transcendence within such a study.

In summary, participatory power dynamics can be centralized in our understanding of paradox. Moving beyond business-as-usual approaches to meet the existential demands of large-scale challenges, like climate change, requires expanding our description of who enacts the paradoxes. Or is excluded from that process. Our theories must recognize the absence of participatory power-with interactions and aspire for more inclusive ways of interacting. As Follett notes, the integrative creativity required to address our largest strategic challenges depends on it.

Question 3 for future paradox research: How do democratic participatory interactions, or their absence, inform the construction and response to paradox?

Concluding remarks: “What may be?”

Though Mary Parker Follett lived 100 years ago, her work and life inspire us to think more deeply about paradoxes in strategy and organizing. Her insights invite paradox scholars to reconceptualize multi-level theorizing, meaningful change, and power in interaction. By doing so, she pushes scholars to move beyond describing “what is” to explore “what may be,” and toward a more radical strategy theorizing. As she states:

We need a new faith in humanity, not a sentimental faith or a theological tenant or a philosophical conception, but an active faith in the creative power of men [sic] which shall shape government and industry (Follett, 1918: 360).

In this way, she invites paradox scholars to go beyond the empirical realities of dealing with tension to explore how navigating paradox can lead to new possibilities, despite the difficulties of doing so. For instance, to help address climate change paradox scholars need to go beyond understanding practices of integrating within existing paradox-laden systems to get the most out of them. Rather, scholars also need to use the concepts of paradox to reimagine new systems defined by new and transformed paradoxes. This adjustment of paradox research calls for more radical theorizing that ultimately moves scholarship outside of the capitalistic foundations and assumptions of existing strategy and organizational theory (Jarzabkowski et al., 2021; Nyberg and Wright, 2022); a reconceptualization that shifts scholars and practitioners beyond business-as-usual responses (Wright and Nyberg, 2017) in ways that enable us to address complex societal challenges such as sustainability and inequality. The question Follett leaves for paradox scholars is: are we bold enough to be part of this reimagining of “what may be” in relation to these grand challenges of our time?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Paula Jarzabkowski for her valuable guidance as editor, two anonymous reviewers for their constructive critique, Medhanie Gaim for feedback on a draft paper, Stephen Cummings for the discussions about Mary Parker Follett, and participants at the EGOS Standing Working Group on Organizational Paradox (2020) where we presented an early version of this work.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rebecca Bednarek

Notes

Author biographies

Rebecca Bednarek is an associate professor of Strategic Strategy in Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). Her research interests include strategizing practices in complex, often paradoxical, organizational settings. She has a passion for qualitative methods; developing insights into global ethnography, ethnographic textwork, and studying paradox based on her experience studying the New Zealand science sector and the global (re)insurance industry. Her research has been published in leading journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Human Relations, Long Range Planning, Organizational Studies, Strategic Management Journal and Strategic Organization. Address: Wellington School of Business and Government, Wellington School of Business and Government, Wellington, New Zealand. [email: rebecca.bednarek@vuw.ac.nz].

Wendy K Smith is the Dana J. Johnson Professor of Business at the Lerner College of Business and Economics at the University of Delaware. She received her PhD in organizational behavior from Harvard University. Her research investigates strategic paradoxes, particularly tensions between exploring and exploiting and between social mission and financial profit. Her research has appeared in a numerous leading journals including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Harvard Business Review, Organization Science, Management Science and Strategic Organization. Address: Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. [email: smithw@udel.edu]

References

Andriopoulos

Lewis

(2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20(4): 696–717.

Ansell

(2009) Mary Parker Follett and pragmatist organization. In: Adler

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies: Classical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 464–485.

Aust

Brandl

Keegan

(2015) State-of-the-art and future directions for HRM from a paradox perspective: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management 29(3–4): 194–213.

Badham

(2017) Reflections on the paradoxes of modernity: A conversation with James March. In: Lewis

Smith

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook on Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 277–295.

Bapuji

Neville

(2015) Income inequality ignored? An agenda for business and strategic organization. Strategic Organization 13(3): 233–246.

Barclay

(2005) Following in the footsteps of Mary Parker Follett: Exploring how insights from the past can advance organizational justice theory and research. Management Decision 43(5): 740–760.

Bednarek

Cummings

Bridgman

(2020) Out of place: Management studies’ temporal misplacements of Mary Parker Follett. Academy of Management Proceedings. Epub ahead of print 29 July. DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2020.16471abstract.

Bednarek

Paroutis

Sillince

(2017) Transcendence through rhetorical practices: Responding to paradox in the science sector. Organization Studies 38(1): 77–101.

Beech

Burns

Caestecker

, et al. (2004) Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations 57(10): 1313–1332.

10.

Berti

Simpson

(2021) The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review 46(2): 252–274.

11.

Berti

Simpson

Cunha

, et al. (2021) Elgar Introduction to Organizational Paradox Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

12.

Calás

Smircich

(1996) Not ahead of her time: Reflections on Mary Parker Follett as prophet of management. Organization 3(1): 147–152.

13.

Clegg

Cunha

(2002) Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations 55(5): 483–503.

14.

Cunha

MPE

Putnam

(2019) Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization 17(1): 95–106.

15.

Drucker

(1995) Introduction: Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. In: Graham

(ed.) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

16.

Eylon

(1998) Understanding empowerment and resolving its paradox: Lessons from Mary Parker Follett. Journal of Management History 4(1): 16–28.

17.

Fairhurst

Putnam

(2019) An integrative methodology for organizational oppositions: Aligning grounded theory and discourse analysis. Organizational Research Methods 22(4): 917–940.

18.

Farjoun

(2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review 35: 202–226.

19.

Feldheim

(2003) Mary Parker Follett lost and found—again, and again, and again. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior 7(3): 341–362.

20.

Feldman

Pentland

(2022) Routine dynamics: Toward a critical conversation. Strategic Organization 20(4): 846–859.

21.

Follett

(1918) The New State. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.

22.

Follett

(1924) Creative Experience. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.

23.

Follett

(1995 [1924]) Relating: The circular response. In: Graham

(ed.) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 35–65.

24.

Follett

(1995 [1925]) Constructive conflict. In: Graham

(ed.) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 67–87.

25.

Follett

(1995a) Co-ordination. In: Graham

(ed.) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 183–205.

26.

Follett

(1995b) Power. In: Graham

(ed.) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 97–119.

27.

Fox

(1968) Mary Parker Follett: The enduring contribution. Public Administration Review 28(6): 520–529.

28.

Fox

Urwick

(1973) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd.

29.

Gaim

Clegg

(2021) Beyond paradox theory orthodoxy, East and West: The case of Ubuntu. In: Bednarek

Cunha

MPE

Schad

, et al. (eds) Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradox, Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 31–52.

30.

Gaim

Clegg

Cunha

MPE

(2021) Managing impressions rather than emissions: Volkswagon and the false mastery of paradox. Organization Studies 42(6): 949–970.

31.

Graham

(1995) Mary Parker Follett Prophet of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

32.

Hahn

Knight

(2021) The ontology of organizational paradox: A quantum approach. Academy of Management Review 46(2): 362–384.

33.

Hahn

Preuss

Pinkse

, et al. (2014) Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review 39(4): 463–487.

34.

Hampden-Turner

(1982) Maps of the Mind. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

35.

Handy

(1994) The Age of Paradox. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

36.

Hatch

Erhlich

(1993) Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies 14(4): 505–526.

37.

Huq

Reay

Chreim

(2017) Protecting the paradox of interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 513–538.

38.

Jarzabkowski

Bednarek

Lê

(2018) Studying paradox as process and practice: Identifying and following moments of salience and latency. In: Farjoun

Smith

Langley

, et al. (eds) Dualities, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizational Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.175–194.

39.

Jarzabkowski

Bednarek

Chalkias

, et al. (2019) Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: Methodological lessons from a study of a grand challenge. Strategic Organization 17(1): 120–132.

40.

Jarzabkowski

Bednarek

Chalkias

, et al. (2022) Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: Knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems. Academy of Management Journal 65(5): 1477–1506.

41.

Jarzabkowski

Dowell

Berchicci

(2021) Strategy and organization scholarship through a radical sustainability lens: A call for 5.0. Strategic Organization 19(3): 449–455.

42.

Jarzabkowski

Van de Ven

(2013) Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization 11(3): 245–280.

43.

Jarzabowski

Lê

(2017) We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 433–462.

44.

Jay

(2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal 56(1): 137–159.

45.

Keller

Carmine

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (2021) Our collective tensions: Paradox Research Community’s response to COVID-19. Journal of Management Inquiry 30(2): 168–176.

46.

Kolb

Jensen

Shannon

(1996) She said it all before, or what did we miss about Ms Follett in the library? Organization 3(1): 153–160.

47.

Lê

Bednarek

(2017) Paradox in everyday practice: Applying practice-theoretical principles to paradox. In: Lewis

Smith

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook on Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 490–509.

48.

Lewis

(2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review 25(4): 760–776.

49.

Luscher

Lewis

(2008) Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal 51(2): 221–240.

50.

Melé

(2003) The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics 44(1): 77–88.

51.

Mendenhall

Macomber

Cutright

(2000) Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of chaos and complexity. Journal of Management History 6(4): 191–204.

52.

Metcalf

Urwick

(2004 [1940]) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. London: Routledge.

53.

Miron-Spektor

Erez

(2017) Looking at creativity through a paradox lens. In: Lewis

Smith

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook on Organizational Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 434–451.

54.

Miron-Spektor

Emich

Argote

, et al. (2022) Conceiving opposites together: Cultivating paradoxical frames and epistemic motivation fosters team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 171: 104–153.

55.

Miron-Spektor

Gino

Argote

(2011) Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 116(2): 229–240.

56.

Miron-Spektor

Ingram

Keller

, et al. (2018) Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal 61(1): 26–45.

57.

Nyberg

Wright

(2022) Challenging disciplinary norms: A response. Academy of Management Perspectives 36(3): 962–267.

58.

O’Connor

(2000) Integrating Follett: History, philosophy and management. Journal of Management History 6(4): 167–190.

59.

O’Connor

(2020) Making the Res Publica: The political basis of management in the US–the works of Joseph Wharton, Mary Parker Follett, and Chester Barnard. In: Bruce

(ed.) Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 80–100.

60.

Parker

(1984) Control in organizational life: The contribution of Mary Parker Follett. The Academy of Management Review 9(4): 736–745.

61.

Polman

Winston

(2021) Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

62.

Pradies

(2022) With head and heart: How emotions shape paradox navigation in veterinary work. Academy of Management Journal. Epub ahead of print 28 March. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2019.0633.

63.

Pradies

Aust

Bednarek

, et al. (2021) The lived experience of paradox: How individuals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry 30(2): 154–167.

64.

Putnam

(1986) Contridictions and paradoxes in organizations. In: Thayer

(ed.) Organization Communications: Emerging Perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, pp. 151–167.

65.

Putnam

Fairhurst

Banghart

(2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 65–171.

66.

Quinn

Cameron

(1988) Organizational Paradox and Transformation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.

67.

Said Business School and Heidrick & Struggles (2015) The CEO Report: Embracing the Paradoxes of Leadership and the Power of Doubt. Oxford: Said Business School; Chicago, IL: Heidrick & Struggles.

68.

Schad

Bansal

(2018) Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies 55(8): 1490–1506.

69.

Schad

Lewis

Raisch

, et al. (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 5–64.

70.

Schad

Lewis

Smith

(2019) Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization 17(1): 107–119.

71.

Schilling

(2000) Decades ahead of her time: Advancing stakeholder theory through the ideas of Mary Parker Follett. Journal of Management History 6(5): 224–242.

72.

Seidl

Lê

Jarzabkowski

(2021) The generative potential of Luhmann’s theorizing for paradox research: Decision paradox and deparadoxization. In: Bednarek

Cunha

MPE

Schad

, et al. (eds) Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradox: Investigating Social Structures and Human Expression, Part B. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 49–64.

73.

Sethi

(1962) Mary Parker Follet: Pioneer in management theory. Academy of Management Journal 5(3): 214.

74.

Sharma

Bansal

(2017) Partners for Good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies 38(3–4): 341–364.

75.

Slawinski

Bansal

(2015) Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science 26(2): 531–549.

76.

Smith

Berg

(1987) Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

77.

Smith

Lewis

(2022) Both/And Thinking: Embracing Creative Tensions to Solve Your Toughest Problems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

78.

Smith

(2014) Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal 57(6): 1592–1623.

79.

Smith

Besharov

(2019) Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly 64(1): 1–44.

80.

Smith

Lewis

(2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review 36(2): 381–403.

81.

Smith

Gonin

Besharov

(2014) Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly 23(3): 407–442.

82.

Smith

Lewis

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (2017) Introduction: The paradoxes of paradox. In: Smith

Lewis

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (eds) Handbook of Organizational Paradox: Approaches to Plurality, Tensions and Contradicitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–16.

83.

Snider

(1998) Living pragmatism: The case of Mary Parker Follett. Administrative Theory & Praxis 20(3): 274–286.

84.

Stout

Love

(2017) The unfortunate misinterpretation of Miss Follett. Public Voices 13(2): 11–32.

85.

Stout

Staton

(2011) The ontology of process philosophy in Follett’s administrative theory. Administrative Theory & Praxis 33(2): 268–292.

86.

Tonn

(2003) Mary P. Follett: Creating Democracy, Transforming Management. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

87.

Tsoukas

Cunha

(2017) On organizational circularity: Vicious and virtuous circles in organizing. In: Lewis

Smith

Jarzabkowski

, et al. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox: Approaches to Plurality, Tensions, and Contradictions. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 393–412.

88.

Vince

Broussine

(1996) Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies 17(1): 1–21.

89.

Williams

Heucher

Whiteman

(2021) Planetary emergency and paradox. In: Bednarek

Cunha

Schad

al.

(eds) Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradox, Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 151–170.

90.

Wright

Nyberg

(2017) An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Academy of Management Journal 60(5): 1633–1661.

91.

Zundel

La Cour

Lauritzen

(2021) Spencer Brown’s Paradox. In: Bednarek

Cunha

Schad

al.

(eds) Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradox, Research in the Sociology of Organization. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 139–159.

“What may be”: Inspiration from Mary Parker Follett for paradox theory

Abstract

Keywords

Mary Parker Follett and paradox theory: traveling companions

Pragmatism: finding what may be in real-life experiences

Holism: creative integration across the total situation

Process: constant flux through circular relating

Humanism: centering the social individual

Paradox theory: a Follett inspired agenda of what “may be”

How the micro constructs the macro?

Possibilities for meaningful change

Participatory interactions

Concluding remarks: “What may be?”

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biographies

References