Abstract
This paper intervenes in paradox theory and research by problematizing the taken-for-granted premises that currently dominate the field. Building on the “growing pains” of paradox theory, the paper offers three provocations for current paradox theory and research: it questions the conceptual universality of paradox, reveals the implicit normativity of some of its key assumptions, and problematizes the hegemony of the conception of both/and as core to responses to paradox. Deliberately stepping beyond the established guardrails of paradox theory, the paper critically assesses these premises and reflects on their potential risks and blind spots. Building on these three provocations, the paper offers in turn a set of distinct pathways for theoretical development, including interpreting presupposed features of paradox in light of ontological positions, integrating normative approaches into paradox management, and introducing much greater granularity to the study of paradox responses.
Introduction
While the song “Blinded by the Light” by Bruce Springsteen (1973) was never intended to portray paradox theory but derived from a book of rhymes, it does contain a paradoxical truth: light not only represents the fundamental condition for observing and understanding but simultaneously serves as a source of blindness. Ironically, the song was a complete flop at the time. However, the British rock band Manfred Mann’s Earth Band released a cover version just three years later, leading to their breakthrough in the United States, illustrating how close success and failure can be. In a figurative sense, “Blinded by the Light” also shows how popularity and radiance can simultaneously lead to ignorance and blindness, nurturing the “paradox of success” (Cunha & Putnam, 2019).
As a highly successful research stream in management and organization studies over the past twenty years, paradox theory shines brightly. It has provided many scholars, including myself, with a strong sense of belonging and an almost infinite research agenda that could fill a lifelong career. Being recognized as an integral part of the “new thinking” in organizational research (Tsoukas et al., 2020), paradox theory disrupts the comfortable idea “that organizations are orderly, logical and predictable entities” (Berti et al., 2021, p. 2) and argues that approaches towards ordering and optimizing processes of organizing cannot solve all types of tensions. In the success story of paradox theory, Smith and Lewis’ (2011) paper “Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing” presents a cornerstone. Building on this foundational piece and its definition of paradox as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382), paradox theory has flourished and become an indispensable part of organization and management studies. By now, paradoxes are considered “a pervasive characteristic of organizational life” (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017, p. 386), and their management is seen as the “ultimate advantage and challenge for organizations” (Andriopoulous & Lewis, 2009, p. 709), making it impossible to close one’s eyes to the bright light of paradox.
However, at the same time, the exponential growth and proliferation of paradox theory over the last decade (see Berti et al., 2021; Pradies et al., 2023, for recent reviews) have contributed to an increasingly diverse research field and raised concerns about the development of a “dominant logic, which will ultimately hinder conceptual development” (Schad et al., 2019, p. 107). Against this background, this paper constitutes a deliberate intervention in paradox theory and research, aiming to problematize fundamental yet often unquestioned premises underlying the field. I aim to redirect the vast expanse of paradox research in management and organization studies toward new directions and reestablish its dialogue with other disciplines. Engaging in emancipatory theorizing (Cornelissen et al., 2021), I highlight critical developments and emerging risks within paradox theory and research that I argue must be addressed to ensure the perspective’s continued relevance and impact for the community, while maintaining connections with scholars outside the field.
For the purpose of this paper, I focus on paradox theory as it has developed into a broadly unitary and holistic “paradigm” (Lewis & Smith, 2022, p. 539), being considered a coherent and organized research stream. Addressing the “convergence of key ideas and definitions” in paradox theory, as summarized by Lewis and Smith (2022, p. 529), I concentrate on the accumulating insights of the last decade’s advances in paradox theory. While outside the scope of this paper, I acknowledge related bodies of work that have influenced the debate since the 1980s (Cameron, 1986; Poole & van de Ven, 1989; Quinn & Cameron, 1988), as well as alternative approaches to paradox based on different theoretical schools of thought, such as dialectics (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2016) or systems theory (Rasche & Seidl, 2017; Seidl et al., 2021), which follow different core assumptions.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: First, I summarize the nascent critique within existing paradox literature. Second, I argue that the field’s growing pains stem from three key tenets associated with the dominant perspective that has emerged in paradox theory: conceptual universality, implicit normativity, and the hegemony of both/and. I critically examine these key premises and analyze their implications for theoretical development and research. Finally, I identify distinct pathways for an alternative research agenda, including interpreting paradox features in light of different ontological perspectives, integrating normative approaches, and introducing granularity to paradox responses.
Growing Pains of Paradox Theory
According to paradox studies, contradictory yet interrelated tensions are embedded in the process of organizing (Johnson, 2014; Papachroni et al., 2014) and “ubiquitous in organizational life” (Lewis & Smith, 2014, p. 132). Once paradoxes have become salient, frequently triggered by conditions of scarcity, plurality, and change (Smith & Lewis, 2011), embracing them becomes imperative to harness their manifold potential. These potentials extend from gaining strategic and competitive advantages and ensuring long-term sustainability to enhancing productivity, facilitating change, and fostering creativity and innovation (Heracleous & Wirtz, 2014; Liu et al., 2020; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). Embracing paradoxes means differentiating and integrating conflicting poles simultaneously (“both/and approach”) instead of prioritizing one pole (“either/or approach”) (Schad et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2016). As an example, Heracleous and Wirtz (2014) show how Singapore Airlines has become one of the most renowned and high-performing airlines by mastering paradoxes with a both/and approach. Embracing interdependent tensions, such as the delicate balance between standardization and personalization in customer service, the airline initiated a virtuous cycle without compromising on either pole of the paradox. This approach, the authors suggest, generates positive outcomes including “efficiency but also [. . .] adaptability and learning, skillful use of market power, and sound strategic choices” (Heracleous & Wirtz, 2014, p. 169).
While this embrace of paradox presents a compelling perspective for organizations, critical voices from within the paradox community have begun to identify its shortcomings. Some emerging concerns are summarized as the “dark sides of paradox” (Berti & Simpson, 2021). These dark sides address the neglected aspect of power within paradox theory (Berti & Cunha, 2022), and express a critical view on the presupposed positive outcomes of paradox management (Es-Sajjade et al., 2020; Gaim et al., 2021; Ungureanu et al., 2018). In addition to the growing focus on the dark sides of paradox, scholars are expanding beyond what is seen as a linear and one-dimensional perspective on paradoxes, calling for an increase in complexity within paradox theory through the advancement of a more “dynamic” equilibrium model at its base (Schad & Bansal, 2018; Sheep et al., 2016; Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). In the following, I summarize the core arguments of these two “growing pains” (Berti & Cunha, 2022, p. 861) developments as correctives to existing paradox theory and research and demonstrate why they fall short.
The debate on the dark sides of paradox
The dark sides of paradox center around actors’ limitations in responding to paradoxes, and raise skepticism regarding their universal generative potential. On the one hand, the debate evolves around the neglected question of power in the process of managing paradox (Putnam et al., 2016; Wenzel et al., 2019). Berti and Cunha (2022) argue that power affects paradox theory in three ways. First, the authors complement the assumption that actors are always able to respond to paradoxes in a legitimate way by arguing that material conditions, such as access to resources or hierarchical disparities, often deprive individuals of options to address paradoxes productively (Berti & Simpson, 2021, p. 261). To illustrate, they highlight paradoxes that materialize as double binds, such as the directives “be spontaneous” or “take initiative,” which imply that complying with the instruction entails disobeying it simultaneously, leaving individuals with no viable course of action. Second, Berti and Cunha (2022, p. 875) argue that power dynamics influence the choice of response strategy, as different stakeholders have varying intentions and preferences for addressing a particular field of tension. Finally, they argue that exposing paradoxes and rendering them visible to actors is itself subject to power relations. For instance, the paradox between shareholders’ short-term profit focus and stakeholders’ long-term sustainability claims might remain latent, as powerful shareholders often dominate the debate at the expense of less vocal stakeholders (Schrage & Rasche, 2021).
On the other hand, the literature on the dark sides of paradox questions whether paradoxes invariably contribute to organizational success, highlighting how they might cause dysfunctional dynamics (Gaim et al., 2021; Seidemann et al., 2023; Ungureanu et al., 2018). Gaim et al. (2021) demonstrate with the VW diesel scandal how embracing a paradox rhetorically can lead to dysfunctional dynamics, resulting in nested tensions across organizational levels. While the VW leadership promoted the development of a fast, cheap, and environmentally friendly diesel car, lower-level engineers “embraced” these conflicting requirements by integrating a device to manipulate and “cheat” emission tests. This case highlights how top management’s both/and approach might force lower-level managers into an impossible situation, ultimately leading to adverse organizational effects. Consequently, the perspective of the dark sides of paradox urges researchers to consider power imbalances among actors and cautions that a paradox approach is no simple panacea and may be less effective than it appears.
The call for an increase of complexity in paradox theory
A second growing pain arises from the call to increase complexity in advancing paradox theory (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Schad & Bansal, 2018; Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). Various authors have expanded the dominant perspective of isolated paradoxes that unfold in single organizations, stressing the knotted- and nestedness of paradoxes (Gaim et al., 2021; Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Sheep et al., 2016), particularly in inter-organizational systems (Cunha & Putnam, 2019; Tracey & Creed, 2017). For example, Jarzabkowski et al. (2022) analyze the emergence of interrelated paradoxes in the context of multi-country risk pools. Their study reveals that the practice of (re)knotting paradoxes is crucial for maintaining and recreating equilibrium, ensuring the viability of the system at large. Similarly, Schad and Bansal (2018) adopt a system perspective on paradoxes and argue that research often concentrates on perceived tensions within a particular empirical context, neglecting the underlying complexity of nested, latent tensions at the macro level. Their arguments suggest that paradox scholars focus too much on the trees (the perception of distinct tensions) and neglect the forest (the larger system in which paradoxes are embedded) in their analysis. This oversight can result in unintended consequences and adverse effects, particularly when tackling complex issues such as climate change. Besides this suggestion of constructively complicating paradox theory, paradox scholars have additionally become more critical of the “dynamic equilibrium model” (Smith & Lewis, 2011) underlying paradox theory and its core assumptions. Weiser and Laamanen (2022) argue that the model neglects the emergence of shifts and turns in paradoxes, which can cause tensions to resurface in unpredictable ways. Yet, anticipating and constantly addressing the reemergence of paradox in its evolving forms is difficult for managers and might exceed their cognitive capabilities. Addressing these challenges and questioning the “controllability” of paradoxes, these authors introduce the “dissipative equilibrium model” to capture the temporary nature of equilibria, presenting paradox management as an inherently more complex and ongoing organizational task.
In conclusion, recent contributions indicate the paradox community’s awareness of the boundaries and limitations of current paradox theory and research as well as its eagerness to expand theoretical assumptions by integrating power (Berti & Simpson, 2021), by adopting a system-level perspective (Schad & Bansal, 2018), or by evolving its underlying concept of equilibrium (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). However, behind these attempts lurk more fundamental problems that, I argue, extend beyond theoretical subtleties or research gaps. The metaphor of “growing pains” (Berti & Cunha, 2022, p. 861) suggests that progress often involves challenges, but overcoming them can ultimately lead to positive development. While growing pains acknowledge the potential for growth through internal efforts, the individual experiencing them cannot “escape their own skin.” The current efforts of addressing growing pains thus remain within the existing realm of paradox theory, primarily expanding assumptions rather than fundamentally critiquing them.
Aiming for a more fundamental intervention in paradox research, this paper goes a step beyond the mentioned growing pains by addressing the more fundamental roots of existing criticisms and problematizations and the adjustments offered. Specifically, by integrating the concept of power and emphasizing the limitations individuals face when confronting paradoxes, the literature on the dark sides of paradox already directs attention to the implicit normativity of particular assumptions. Simultaneously, doubts about the primarily positive effects of embracing paradoxes call for a more profound critical examination of the hegemony of both/and and the risks that such solutions imply. And the emerging calls to increase the complexity of paradox theory invite a reassessment of the very nature of paradox. Addressing the aforementioned challenges of how to define paradoxes thus leads to problematizing the universality of paradox and the shortcomings of the existing prevalent definition.
A Critical Reflection on the Universality, Normativity, and Hegemony of Paradox
Approaching existing theoretical assumptions from a provocative perspective builds on the practice of emancipatory theorizing (see, e.g., Janssens & Zanoni, 2021; Spicer, 2020). Recognizing “the historical and social nature of our theoretical knowledge” (Cornelissen et al., 2021, p. 11), emancipatory theorizing aims to unveil dominant assumptions and implicit normativity within existing theoretical conceptualizations and debates. Adopting this approach, I present three provocations for paradox research. First, I challenge the universality of paradoxes, arguing that it leads to labeling tensions as paradoxes too hastily, while simultaneously failing to capture less explicit experiences with paradox. Second, I problematize the implicit normativity underlying paradox theory, based on the premise that paradox has a generative potential for good and positive outcomes. Finally, I challenge the hegemony of both/and approaches, demonstrating how they overemphasize consensus and often lack the complexity to address complex phenomena.
Universality—If everything is a paradox, nothing is a paradox
Traditionally, management scholars viewed organizational tensions as dilemmas requiring tradeoff solutions (Ansoff, 1994; Mintzberg, 1990). Focusing on the opposition of, for instance, exploitation and exploration demands, organizations were advised to prioritize one over the other; or, following a contingency approach (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), separate the competing poles. In contrast, paradox scholars emphasize the interrelatedness of contradictory elements (Schad et al., 2016) arguing that prioritizing or separating poles will eventually backfire, resulting in organizational failure (Smith & Lewis, 2011). By now, a multitude of organizational tensions have been studied as paradoxes, including exploration and exploitation (Andriopoulous & Lewis, 2009; Smith & Tushman, 2005), competition and cooperation (Keller et al., 2017; Stadtler & Van Wassenhove, 2016), social and financial missions (Iivonen, 2017; Sharma & Bansal, 2017), local and global views (Schrage & Rasche, 2021; Tracey & Creed, 2017), stability and change (Rosales et al., 2022), or tensions between short- and long-term orientations (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015, 2017). The inflationary labeling of tensions as paradoxes results from the broad definition of paradoxes as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382). I argue that the universality and “fuzziness” (Berti & Cunha, 2022, p. 867) of the paradox label have two origins: First, while defining paradoxes using the triad of contradiction, interrelation, and persistence suggests precision in their identification, these features themselves are rather generic markers. Such markers can be applied too easily and flexibly to various phenomena that involve tensions of some kind, lacking the ontological grounding needed for proper specification. Second, the universal definition of paradox and its features suggest a level of explicitness and formality that overlooks the intuitiveness and intangibility of paradoxical experiences, such as when encountering irony as an outcome.
Whereas the definition of paradox is well accepted (Berti & Cunha, 2022, p. 865), the current ontological debate evolves around the fundamental question of whether paradoxes are “intrinsic to group life or [. . .] a social construction” (Quinn & Nujella, 2017, p. 7). The perspective that paradoxes present innate features of organizing and exist outside of individual recognition focuses on paradoxes as “living within systems, structures, processes, and routines” (Smith et al., 2017, p. 4). In contrast, the assumption of paradoxes as a social construction relies on the understanding that paradoxical tensions emerge “through the perception, language, and the behavior of individuals and collectives” (Schad, 2017, p. 36). Addressing the contested nature of paradox, Hahn and Knight (2021) draw an analogy with quantum mechanics to promote an ontological both/and approach, arguing that paradoxes are both inherent in organizing and socially constructed. The authors explain that paradoxes are co-constituted by inherent material factors and socially constructed meaning. This quantum ontology suggests that the socio-material context contains and shapes the potentiality for enacting organizational phenomena such as paradoxes by organizational actors (Hahn & Knight, 2021). While different ontological perspectives on paradox shape different research questions and methodological approaches, they are surprisingly detached from the definition of paradox and do not impact the features of contradiction, interrelation, and persistence. I criticize this disconnect and argue that the distinct markers of paradox should be interpreted in the context of ontological positions. Rather than using these markers generically, they must be ontologically grounded and specified to accurately identify and demarcate paradoxes in each context.
The current paradox literature, however, lacks clear guidance on how to account for contradiction, interrelation, and persistence, leading to varied interpretations of these markers. This vagueness is one reason why tensions that imply a degree of opposition and interrelation and cannot be resolved quickly are hastily labeled as paradoxes. Given that the mentioned split in ontological perspectives enables researchers to “project” paradoxes in settings (inherent view) as well as to “elicit” paradoxes from research subjects’ accounts (social construction view) (Andriopoulous & Gotsi, 2017), it is not surprising that scholars often discover multiple paradoxes in complex or ambiguous settings. For instance, Fredberg (2014) finds seven different “paradoxes” by interviewing CEOs of global organizations: a paradox of location, change, creativity, diversity, direction, innovation, and globalization. While one may want to congratulate every discovery of paradox, the legitimate question of the value of such revelations arises.
The detachment of definitional features from their grounding in ontological perspectives becomes particularly evident when focusing on the attribute of persistence. In light of the two contrasting ontologies, persistence is a problematic feature: if we understand paradoxes as inherent to the world, persistence would be redundant; if we assume that paradoxes are socially constructed and can be deconstructed, the persistence of paradoxes would be questioned in principle. Following the quantum ontology (Hahn & Knight, 2021, p. 365), persistence is not necessarily inherent in salient paradoxes but rather “results from the repeated enactment of salient paradoxes in a similar socio-material context” and is therefore conditional. Consequently, depending on the ontological positioning such as this one, paradox persistence would be operationalized very differently. Recently, Kilminster et al. (2024, p. 4) enrich the debate on the “often neglected third element of the classic definition of paradox” by taking a historical perspective. They follow the unfolding of the part–whole paradox, constituted by tensions between the interests of a group and the individual participants, across a system of inter-organizational relationships by studying Lloyd’s of London. The authors find that while the part–whole paradox persists, it evolves dynamically over time, manifesting in different forms. In contrast to understanding persistence as “stasis,” this dynamic perspective has important implications for the identification of paradoxes. Researchers might overlook paradoxes if longitudinal data is unavailable or even dismiss paradoxical observations if their dynamic unfolding appears to contradict persistence. Moreover, acknowledging that persistence may manifest itself in change and metamorphosis over time could reshape the notion of contradiction and interrelation (Tunarosa et al., 2024, p. 2). As Kilminster et al. (2024) demonstrate in the Lloyd’s of London case, the relationship between the part(s) (the interests of individual participants) and the whole (the interests of the group as a whole) changes over time and collective organizing efforts increase the interrelation of poles while decreasing their contradiction. This changing “weight and manifestation” (Kilminster et al., 2024, p. 25) of tensions prompts the more fundamental question of whether a paradox still qualifies as such if one of its features is only present in a very weak intensity. These considerations reveal the problems arising from the generic markers currently used to identify paradoxes. Taking contrasting ontological perspectives seriously, researchers, I suggest, must address what contradiction, interrelation, and persistence signify when considering paradoxes as inherent, constructed, or co-constituted by inherent material factors and socially constructed meaning. In turn, grounding and sharpening the understanding of paradox features in this way helps prevent the indiscriminate labeling of tensions as paradoxes—much to the satisfaction of non-paradox scholars—and encourages the paradox community to engage more closely with underlying ontological assumptions and epistemological implications.
In contrast to the criticism of the conceptual universality, which often leads to the identification of “fake paradoxes” (P. P. Li, 2016, p. 60), I argue that while this universality enables the broad integration of diverse phenomena, it simultaneously falls short in addressing specific instances of paradox. While the definition of paradox explicitly states the features of contradiction, interrelation, and persistence, providing a manual on how to identify paradoxes, it lacks a degree of intuitiveness and implicitness to integrate the experience of paradox that is not captured by this formal paradox apparatus. To demonstrate how emphasizing the explicit features foregrounds a specific understanding of paradox while overlooking other paradoxical instances, I will share my initial encounter with paradox during my PhD. For my first paper, I focused on a German agency facing strong criticism during the “refugee crisis” in 2015. In my youthful naivety, I thought it was a good idea to explain the organization’s continuous loss of legitimacy with an institutionalist lens. However, upon analyzing the data, I discovered that the agency’s attempts to repair its legitimacy were actually exacerbating the problem: the more the agency engaged in repair strategies, the more legitimacy it lost. While I sensed a strong notion of paradox, I failed (in the words of Reviewer 2!) to delineate two poles from the data and to articulate the contradiction, interrelation, and persistence between them. Ironically, I implicitly felt the presence of something “paradoxical” but could not explicitly define it as such. Langley (2021, p. 162) captures the frustration I felt by asking “[. . .] what do people really mean when they say that something is paradoxical?” In everyday language and literature, numerous notions of paradox exist, such as the Icarus paradox (initial success ultimately leading to failure) or the tolerance paradox (tolerating intolerance ultimately erodes tolerance). These instances often describe “outcome irony”—“action intended to achieve one goal actually results in its opposite” (Langley, 2021, p. 161). Because phenomena such as outcome irony do not fit within the universal definition of paradox and its mentioned markers, yet instead intuitively evoke a sense of paradox and absurdity, current paradox research fails to adequately address them.
I conclude that the premise of the universality of paradox has two problematic implications. First, the definition of paradox as contradictory yet interrelated elements that persist (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382) allows for labeling tensions as paradoxes too hastily, as the features of paradox remain vague and are detached from their ontological grounding. Second, while integrating (too) many phenomena involving tensions in this way, the universal definition constitutes an explicitness that ironically fails to capture subtle phenomena that could be designated as paradox. Outcome ironies, for instance, evoke a paradoxical notion but cannot be pressed into the formal apparatus of paradox, and thus fall outside of the scope of current research. The universality of paradox leads to the paradoxical (I am referring here to the intuitive notion of paradox) outcome; namely, that simultaneously too many and too few phenomena are captured by the current prevailing definition of paradox.
Normativity—How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Really?
A second provocation centers around the normative assumption that paradoxes present inherent potential for good and problematizes the implications deriving from this largely implicit but powerful premise. The need to problematize deep-rooted normative positions becomes particularly evident in recent calls to incorporate moral approaches into paradox research (Pérezts et al., 2011; Schwoon et al., 2023; Torres et al., 2023). While Schwoon et al. (2023) refer to paradox theory’s normativity as a “black box” that needs examining, I argue that the box is wide open, but no one looks inside. The nascent efforts to determine what constitutes the good governance of paradox underscore the importance of first uncovering the implicit normativity before building upon such foundations. I problematize two distinct positions deriving from the normative premise that paradoxes present solutions rather than problems. First, I challenge the emphasis on individual responsibility in addressing paradoxes; second, I question the differentiation between “right” and “wrong” responses to paradox.
While not aiming for an extensive historical review of paradox, it is important to briefly touch on its philosophical roots. “Para-dox” is composed of the Greek words para (“contrary to”) and dox (“opinion”), referring to “a condition or relationship that is beyond reason or logic” (Chen, 2002, p. 181). The Western philosophical underpinnings of paradox research characterize situations as paradoxical when they lead to a state of paralysis and aporia (Greek for “lacking passage”). For example, aporia is illustrated in the tale of the “Buridan Bridge” (Jacquette, 1991): Socrates finds himself at a bridge guarded by Plato. Plato speaks to Socrates, “If you speak the truth, I will permit you to cross. But if you lie, I will throw you into the river.” Socrates responds, “You will throw me into the river.” Inevitably, Socrates’ reply poses an insoluble dilemma for Plato, at least if he wants to keep his promise. In contrast to ancient Greek tradition, modern management research does not view paradoxes as unsolvable puzzles to avoid, but rather as sources of innovation and sustainability (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Drawing from Eastern philosophy, paradox is not understood as a problem of inconsistency but as a positive solution centered on completeness (P. P. Li, 2021, p. 52). This perspective evaluates actors’ paradox encounters as desirable, viewing them as promises and potentials to unlock. I argue that this normative premise comes with two problematic assumptions.
One key assumption is that viewing paradoxes as potentials shifts the focus to the individuals responsible for leveraging them. Lewis and Smith (2023, p. 18) proclaim that to “effectively lead is to navigate paradoxes” and argue that organizations with leaders who embrace paradoxes “have the greatest hope of surviving and contributing to the world” (Smith et al., 2016, p. 70). Shedding light on the role of leaders, a small yet growing part of the paradox community adopts a micro-level perspective, focusing on the cognitive processes involved in engaging with paradoxes (e.g., Keller et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2015). The central idea is that the “gift of the paradox” does not come for free but relies on a capable leader: It is “the role of leadership [. . .] to support opposing forces and harness the constant tension between them” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 386). This cognitive capability is frequently defined as a “paradox mindset,” i.e., “the extent to which one is accepting of and energized by tensions” (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018, p. 26). A paradox mindset empowers individuals to first, identify paradoxes and present them to, for example, lower-level managers (Knight & Paroutis, 2016), and second, it enables acceptance and the embracing of paradoxes (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Empirical studies exploring how individuals engage with paradoxes support this assumption; revealing that individuals who actively accept and address paradoxes demonstrate greater creativity, innovation, and performance (Calabretta et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2020). For example, Zhang et al. (2015, p. 538) measure paradoxical leader behavior and find that leaders oriented toward paradoxes position themselves more effectively in complex environments, contributing to “proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity among subordinates.”
However, the implication that managing paradoxes constitutes a vital leadership requirement is itself problematic. This understanding burdens individuals (Berti & Simpson, 2021) and attributes potentially adverse effects of paradoxes to individual mismanagement, rather than recognizing them as outcomes stemming from organizational or systemic structures. Moreover, idealizing the “skilled” or “attuned” paradox manager fosters a two-class system of “enlightened” leaders who can unlock paradox potential and “less gifted ones” who may even lead their organizations into downward spirals. Revisiting the ancient Greek perspective on paradoxes, which viewed them not as gifts but as sources of paralysis and frustration (as exemplified by Plato’s insoluble situation), highlights that embracing multiple conflicting personal and organizational goals often leads to significant stress and resignation (Carollo & Guerci, 2017), rather than energizing individuals. Classic research in psychology furthermore suggests that paradoxes can trigger paranoid behavior, induce lethargic obedience, and potentially decrease engagement (Watzlawick et al., 1967). Therefore, I argue that the normative emphasis on the role of individual leaders and managers carries risks and creates undue pressure, and warrants a more critical examination within the cognitive stream of paradox research.
Another central but problematic assumption is that paradoxes harbor latent potentials that should be harnessed (Smith & Lewis, 2022) and thus entails a “right” and “wrong” way to respond to a paradox. The dynamic equilibrium model (Smith & Lewis, 2011) distinguishes defensive from proactive approaches to paradox, favoring the proactive approach. According to Smith and Lewis (2022, p. 92), individuals “with a more dichotomous mindset” often adopt defensive strategies, such as ignoring the paradox or emphasizing one of its poles. These defensive strategies are assumed to initiate vicious cycles and downward spirals. In contrast, proactive approaches, such as accepting and consciously embracing the paradox, are presumed to generate virtuous cycles and ignite creativity and innovation. The strong emphasis on tackling paradoxes proactively is further reflected in terminologies such as “mastering” or “navigating” paradoxes. However, this assumption overlooks the significant role and value of seemingly “defensive” responses such as resistance to paradox.
While resistance in management research is often negatively portrayed, characterized “as an obstacle, hindrance, obstruction, or barrier” (Butler et al., 2017, p. 7), it might also serve as a potent means to expose systemic inequality and power structures (Giorgi et al., 2014; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2016). As a contrasting normative stance to the taken-for-granted recommendation of embracing paradoxes, paradox resistance becomes especially meaningful when considering the factors assumed to render paradoxes salient. Smith and Lewis (2022, p. 11) describe the conditions of change, scarcity, and plurality as essential for making paradoxes visible: The greater the rate of change [. . .], the more we must grapple with tensions between today and tomorrow. The scarcer the resources, the more we fight for our slice of the pie [. . .]; the more that conflicting approaches are raised [. . .], the more that we experience tensions between a unified global view and distinct local views.
The identified conditions represent exogenous factors in paradox theory. While the proactive embrace of paradoxes accepts or even reaffirms these triggers, resisting paradoxes challenges these factors, allowing us to explore the rationales and causes behind change, scarcity, and plurality. Is change inherently desirable? What are the reasons behind the scarcity of particular resources, and is scarcity uniformly experienced across all parts of organizations and society?
To illustrate the risks of only focusing on the proactive management of paradoxes without questioning the contextual factors that give rise to them, consider the concept of work–life balance. Balancing personal and family life with career ambitions often leads to contradictions (like choosing between caring for a sick child and attending an important meeting), as well as interrelations (where a fulfilling personal life fosters creativity, yet the job also provides self-worth essential for relationships). While paradox theory suggests balancing these tensions (e.g., by attending the important meeting online from home), I emphasize questioning the environmental conditions that trigger the paradox. For example, rather than expecting women to reconcile childcare and career tensions, we could examine why childcare resources are scarce and why society assigns primary childcare responsibility to women. Resisting paradoxes, instead of simply accepting them, illuminates the roots of tensions and creates a powerful and important base for problematizing societal trends. While management research, for nearly a century, has presumed that resistance must be overcome to facilitate change (Coch & French, 1948; Lewin, 1947), it is critical to explore its productive potential as well. While some time ago Hargrave and Van de Ven (2016) explicitly called for integrating resistance into paradox theory, their call has gone largely unheeded.
These arguments highlight the need to reveal the normative premises of paradox theory and its explicit implications, including how these influence specific research streams in paradox theory. Understanding paradoxes as dormant potentials that need to be leveraged for positive outcomes, leads to two problematic assumptions. Firstly, idealizing the capable paradox leader, who guides their subordinates to success, overemphasizes a “paradox mindset” and the cognitive capabilities of certain individuals in paradox management. This perspective burdens individual managers and ignores organizational and systemic causes for potential success and failure. Second, paradox theory favors “proactive” over “defensive” approaches when dealing with paradoxes. This emphasis on accepting and embracing tensions overlooks the factors that render paradoxes salient and neglects the potential of resistance in paradox management. Even the literature on the dark sides of paradox assumes that dysfunctional dynamics are not caused by the paradox itself, but by inadequate management, as evidenced by the concept of the “false mastery of paradox” (Gaim et al., 2021). However, problematizing this widely accepted but limited normative base is crucial to addressing the recent calls to incorporate alternative normative and moral approaches into paradox theory and research (Schwoon et al., 2023; Torres et al., 2023).
Hegemony of both/and—Have your cake and eat it, too. But I’m not hungry
A third powerful premise, central to the concept of paradox theory, emphasizes the superiority of “both/and” over “either/or” solutions. Accordingly, organizational success hinges on addressing conflicting poles simultaneously rather than choosing between them. Smith et al. (2016) argue that organizations need to be able to simultaneously manage for today and tomorrow, adhere to boundaries and cross them, create value for shareholders and stakeholders, and act locally and globally. The panacea of both/and is linked to the prospect of novelty and rediscovery, symbolized by the yin–yang metaphor. P. P. Li (2016) characterizes the either/or logic associated with the Western worldview as an old paradigm that must be supplanted by the superior system of both/and. Paradox scholars oftentimes use the yin–yang symbol to emphasize balance and harmony, arguing that while paradoxes involve opposition, they are also synergistic and interconnected within a larger system (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 386). P. P. Li (2016, p. 69) even states that yin–yang constitutes “the only epistemological system that can truly accommodate and appreciate paradox.” Quinn and Nujella (2017, p. vi) conclude that “both/and thinking augurs well because it signals a certain maturity [. . .] and propels us toward wholeness via more holistic theories of management.” While terms like “holistic approach,” “maturity,” “wholeness,” and “harmony” usually evoke positive associations, the pursuit of both/and implies significant risks that paradox scholars have not adequately addressed.
I argue that this paradigm of “having your cake and eating it, too,” entails severe limitations and blind spots. First, both/and approaches and the notion of achieving an equilibrium are overly simplistic and not always feasible, especially when confronting inter-organizational challenges and wicked problems (Reinecke & Ansari, 2016). Second, I discuss that both/and solutions prioritize interrelation over contradiction, which inadvertently may result in the perpetuation of structural inequality and injustice in many instances.
Given paradox theory’s focus on contexts of ambiguity and complexity, it is not surprising to see a growing trend of applying a paradox lens to the research domain of grand challenges (e.g., Hahn et al., 2017; Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Schrage & Rasche, 2021; Sharma & Bansal, 2017). Grand challenges research focuses on large-scale problems with far-reaching societal implications that are uncertain, complex, and evaluative (Ferraro et al., 2015, p. 365), such as climate change or poverty. Tackling these challenges involves diverse actors from different sectors, which can lead to tensions and contradictions. Focusing on these tensions, the both/and lens is being advocated to scholars and practitioners, urging them to cultivate a “productive and realistic relationship to both the contradictions and interdependencies that are fundamental to engaging with a grand challenge” (Jarzabkowski et al., 2019, p. 129). Both/and approaches aim to maintain the equilibrium of two contradictory yet interrelated poles “by adapting to a continuous pull in opposing directions” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 386). However, I challenge the assumption that paradoxes arising from grand challenges are effectively managed by balancing poles through both/and approaches. Grand challenges largely exist outside of an equilibrium, and both/and approaches are too simplistic to adequately address the complexity of these challenges. Jarzabkowski et al. (2023) exemplify this argument in their book Disaster Insurance Reimagined. Addressing the grand challenge of the disaster insurance gap—uninsured economic losses intensified by the increasing frequency and severity of disasters—reveals three interconnected paradoxes: a paradox of control, of knowledge, and of responsibility. The authors show that in a global, inter-organizational system, it is impossible to maintain the three paradoxes in balance. Instead, they illustrate how phases of equilibrium and disequilibrium between the paradoxes create a set of system dynamics, ultimately highlighting the significance of disequilibrium. Similarly, Jarzabkowski et al. (2022) stress that to (re)establish an equilibrium within an inter-organizational system, it is not necessarily about balancing the poles of specific paradoxes through a both/and approach, but rather about purposefully prioritizing one pole at certain times. In a system of interrelated, knotted paradoxes, “contrary to known responses to disequilibrium consisting of reasserting a suppressed pole in order to restore balance within a paradox” (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022, p. 1479), emphasizing that the dominant pole of an unbalanced paradox keeps the system alive. These findings suggest that both/and approaches often lack the complexity needed for highly complex challenges (Blagoev & Schreyögg, 2024). As cybernetics has long established, complexity is best handled by complexity (Ashby, 1958; Boisot & McKelvey, 2011), indicating that embracing tensions via both/and solutions may be insufficient to adequately address complex wicked problems. Langley (2021, p. 169) similarly summarizes her doubts about the panacea of both/and as follows: [. . .] I have often thought that the existing literature on paradox sometimes tends to make paradox seem too easy. We say there is no solution, but then on reading parts of the literature, it seems as though there actually is—and the solution is both-and.
In addition to the argument that both/and approaches are too simplistic for capturing the complexity of grand challenges, they also overemphasize interrelation over contradiction, risking the prioritization of harmony over conflict (Cunha & Putnam, 2019; X. Li, 2014). The both/and perspective aims to embrace conflicting poles, relying on the complementarity of both elements or as X. Li (2014, p. 22) puts it, it “stresses harmony and is disdainful of confrontation.” Approaching paradoxical tensions with the both/and approach hence implies a certain degree of social cohesiveness and underlying consensus regarding the tension at hand. However, complex societal or ecological tensions cut “across jurisdictional boundaries, implicating multiple criteria of worth” (Ferraro et al., 2015, p. 364), oftentimes indicating deep societal divides and conflicting lines of thought among individuals and groups in society. Instead of addressing the underlying causes of these conflicts, such as the debate on who should make the most concessions to mitigate climate change, both/and approaches tend to gloss over and tame these conflicts rather than recognizing them.
A key example that highlights the risk of concealing contradiction with both/and approaches is the tension between social and profit orientations, an area where both/and solutions appear particularly attractive. While reconciling social, ecological, and profit-oriented goals has been discussed in management research for decades, existing approaches such as shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011) or CSR as a business case (Carroll & Shabana, 2010) essentially rely on either/or thinking, prioritizing profit as a hygiene factor. However, sustainability scholars increasingly advocate for a true both/and perspective, which they believe “creates leeway for superior business contributions to sustainable development” (Hahn et al., 2017, p. 235) and enables managers to “conciliate business rationales with a values-laden approach to work” (Carollo & Guerci, 2017, p. 256). The underlying idea is that social and environmental concerns are not merely a means to the end of profit maximization but represent ends in themselves. Yet, critical scholars argue that both/and approaches aiming to reconcile social and profit dimensions often stabilize structural realities instead of questioning the root causes of current economic and political inequality (McGoey, 2012; Ramdas, 2008).
The debate over microfinance in particular reveals the pitfalls of uncritically applying the both/and perspective. Microfinance aims to provide financial services to marginalized individuals or groups who are excluded from traditional banking systems, empowering them to start small businesses (Martí, 2018). Seen as a tool for addressing global poverty (Cobb et al., 2016) and financing climate change adaptation (Fenton, 2011) it seemingly embodies both/and by promoting economic independence for borrowers and sustainability for lenders. However, research suggests microfinance often worsens poverty (EIB, 2019), for example, because borrowers struggling to establish sustainable businesses resort to additional micro-loans to repay installments, exacerbating their financial situation. Hossain’s (2024) study on agricultural microcredits in Bangladesh reveals an increase in child labor due to new opportunities for children in household self-employment activities. Consequently, critics argue that both/and approaches frequently fail to address or even exacerbate the underlying conditions of poverty (Hanlon et al., 2010; Khan et al., 2016; Nussbaum, 2000). Interestingly, despite the criticism, the perceived potential of both/and continues to position microfinance as a promising solution because it presents “an elegant, win-win solution to the problem of poverty” (Hickel, 2015, para. 7).
In conclusion, I argue that advocating for both/and, as a core foundation of paradox theory (Lewis & Smith, 2014), presents significant risks and limitations that paradox scholars must start to address. First, both/and approaches often oversimplify complex paradoxical tensions, especially when applied to grand challenges, and themselves lack the requisite complexity in accommodating intricate inter-organizational tensions. Second, the both/and approach, symbolized by yin–yang, tends to prioritize unity and harmony over conflict, potentially leading to the neglect or dilution of minority opinions and opposing perspectives. In sum, the widespread adoption of the premise of adopting both/and approaches risks masking systemic problems and may perpetuate or worsen societal issues rather than tackling them.
Out of the Dark: Alternative avenues for the critical development of paradox theory and research
While I intend to move beyond the guardrails of paradox research, my provocations aim to engage with the paradox community and contribute to the critical development of the overall perspective. Building on the critique on the universality, normativity, and hegemony of both/and in paradox theory and research, I suggest three pathways for future development and reflection. The aim of these pathways is not to work towards a new comprehensive theory of what paradoxes are and how to manage them, but rather to provide impulses and potential directions for exploring alternative avenues.
First, addressing the critique on the universal conceptualization of paradox, I propose three options to better understand the nature of paradox, each considering a different ontological position as a theoretical grounding. Second, instead of implicitly building on normative assumptions regarding the positive potential of paradox, I recommend exploring how paradox research can explicitly integrate different normative approaches and identify criteria for their assessment. Finally, I advocate considering different levels of granularity in paradox responses to develop more nuanced approaches that are sensitive to cumulative response patterns and go beyond simplistic and isolated both/and solutions. Table 1 summarizes the three provocations I make and links them to the respective avenues for theoretical development that I suggest.
Summary Core Provocations and Avenues Forward.
Leveraging ontological perspectives to better capture the nature of paradox
Questioning the universality of paradox, which often results in categorizing too many tensions as paradoxes while at the same time overlooking less explicit paradoxical phenomena, highlights the need to more fundamentally reassess the nature of paradox. Acknowledging the significance of different ontological perspectives on paradox can facilitate the development of distinct approaches for defining and comprehending paradoxes. The definition of paradox as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 382) offers, as I have argued, too broad a scope for interpreting the features of contradiction, interrelation, and persistence. While Berti and Cunha (2022) suggest including additional markers such as “undecidability” to enhance the paradox definition, I propose to primarily explore the existing features by interpreting them in light of different ontological perspectives. Understanding paradoxes as inherent, socially constructed, or indeed both, can serve as a guiding framework for refining and contextualizing theoretical definitions and interpretations by anchoring the focus of inquiry.
Understanding paradoxes as inherent organizing features prompts the question of why organizations are “rife with paradoxes” (Smith et al., 2017, p. 1). Berti (2021, p. 30) argues that paradox scholars have largely overlooked the “philosophical reflections on the causes of paradox.” Understanding paradoxes as persistent in organizations, he suggests, allows researchers to address the question of why organizations generate contradictory yet interrelated tensions to better comprehend and account for these paradox features. Addressing this question suggests that in essence the structuring of organizations as orderly, logical, and consistent entities implies the presence of interrelation and contradiction (Berti, 2021). Following this assumption, “the pre-existence of purpose, the necessity of consistency, and the primacy of rationality” (P. P. Li, 2021, p. 53) serve as reference points for their opposites, such as absurdity, inconsistency, and irrationality. Grounded in the bureaucratic ideal (Weber, 1978), the hierarchical order and formal rules of modern organizations provide fertile ground for paradoxes. For example, scholars often encounter the paradoxical nature of organizational rules (Eberl et al., 2015; Feldman & Orlikowski, 2011; Geiger & Schröder, 2014), where formal rules can only be followed by being broken. Recognizing that paradoxes arise from the fundamental principles of organizing and are inherent features of organizations enhances our understanding of contradiction and interrelation. Exploring these characteristics may involve considering their organizational “shadow concepts,” for instance, by asking how the longing for order and consistency gives rise to the interrelation and opposition of elements. Thus, by materially grounding the paradox perspective in this way, we can uncover inherent sources of contradiction and interrelation as a way of pinpointing paradoxes in organizations and organizational life.
Second, understanding paradoxes as social constructions allows us to explore how the features of contradiction, interrelation, and (temporal) persistence emerge within and through social interactions. A relational approach to paradox (Brandl et al., 2022; Pamphile, 2022) suggests that individuals may not experience a paradox until they interact with others, such as through collaboration. This ontological perspective enables researchers to study how contradiction, interrelation, and persistence unfold within interactions and how they are interpreted within specific contexts. By examining how interactions between actors give rise to opposition and interrelation, researchers can gain insights into the construction of paradoxes. In addition to exploring the interaction of actors, the role of the researcher also becomes salient in this context. Andriopoulous and Gotsi (2017, p. 523) advise paradox researchers “to situate themselves socially and emotionally in relation to the experience of their respondents.” However, it is also important to consider the impact of researchers’ interactions with their respondents in the context of their paradox experience. While research subjects might not perceive a paradox, interaction and reflection with a paradox scholar can reveal contradictions and interrelations among elements, making the interaction with the researcher a potential origin of the paradox. These considerations are particularly relevant in action research (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), cocreation approaches (Sharma et al., 2022) or ethnographic studies (Rosales et al., 2022) and generally deserve more attention in paradox research. Exploring the interactive nature and co-construction of paradox in social settings opens up room for perspectives that are attuned to the less explicit and more subtle experiences of paradox. For instance, such a perspective enables reflection on paradoxical experiences, such as outcome irony, which are difficult to capture with “the formal apparatus of the paradox perspective” (Langley, 2021, p. 162). In this sense, an even more phenomenological perspective, grounded in respondents’ experiences and their perceptions of absurdity or “aporia,” can be valuable for understanding contradictory yet interrelated tensions and for enriching the definition of paradox.
Finally, the quantum ontology (Hahn & Knight, 2021), which understands paradoxes as both inherent and socially constructed, builds on the potentiality of the enactment of paradoxes embedded in, and shaped by, the socio-material context. This ontological perspective stresses the importance of considering that “contexts change over time [. . .] and thus the probability to enact specific paradoxes” (Hahn & Knight, 2021, p. 375). Acknowledging the changing social and material contexts of paradoxes opens up further avenues for exploring historical perspectives on paradox (Tunarosa et al., 2024) and provides an alternative lens on contradiction, interrelation, and persistence. While quantum ontology understands persistence as the repeated enactment of paradoxes in similar socio-material contexts (Hahn & Knight, 2021), contradiction and interrelation could also be further interpreted from this perspective. Specifically, leveraging the concept of potentiality allows us to focus on why the contradiction and interrelation of specific elements are more likely to be enacted and experienced than others. Considering different configurations of the relation of both features highlights the dynamic interplay of contradiction and interrelation. As Kilminster et al. (2024) demonstrate, the dynamics between contradiction and interrelation within a paradox can evolve over time, leading to changes in its form as it persists. Instead of viewing the relationship between contradiction and interrelation as stable, such a dynamic lens supports the changing potentialities for the enactment of paradox at different points in time. Following a quantum ontology (Hahn & Knight, 2021) thus emphasizes the embeddedness of paradox within the (changing) socio-material context that shapes contradiction and interrelation. Whereas in the field of paradox theory the quantum approach is prevalent for justifying a “both/and ontology,” other theoretical perspectives allow us to challenge the dualism between the inherent and social construction perspectives of paradox. For instance, adopting a critical realist perspective (Fleetwood, 2014; Vincent & O’Mahoney, 2018) or using the lens of socio-materiality (Orlikowski, 2007, 2010; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008) tears down the distinction between the “material” and the “social” and can evoke novel insights into the nature of paradox. Taking the different ontological perspectives on paradox seriously, as well as exploring the consequences of a collapse of ontology and epistemology (e.g., as in Barad’s (2007) onto-epistemology) has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of paradox features.
I conclude that rather than imposing an alternative definition of paradox or adding new markers (Berti & Cunha, 2022), we can strengthen the existing conceptualization of paradox by considering different ontological perspectives. By interpreting the paradox features of contradiction, interrelation, and persistence through these lenses, the generic markers of paradox become more grounded and specifically qualified. This helps to avoid mislabeling tensions as paradoxes and sensitizes research to less explicit paradoxical experiences.
Purposefully integrating normative approaches in paradox research
Problematizing the normativity underlying the premises of paradox theory involves two consecutive steps to advance the overall perspective of paradox: first, sensitizing paradox scholars to develop alternative positions in response to existing normative assumptions, and second, intentionally developing normative theory and concepts to integrate ethical approaches into paradox research. Challenging the paradigm of paradoxes as opportunities for good that require proactive handling by skilled leaders urges scholars to develop “a distinct alternative to the dominant mode of using the literature in a field” (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011, p. 267). Constructing alternative assumptions and engaging with their implications allows scholars to develop novel research questions. For instance, assuming that paradoxes entail negative outcomes for organizations and their members shifts the focus of research to strategies of “getting rid of” paradoxes or keeping them latent. Furthermore, by reversing the assumption of prioritizing proactive over seemingly “defensive” or “passive” approaches, paradox research could, as mentioned, empirically explore the generative potential of resistance (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2016) and focus on the factors that render paradoxes salient, such as scarcity, plurality, and change (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Challenging these external triggers, rather than simply accepting them, can serve as a powerful tool to uncover societal conflicts and persistent inequalities.
In addition to constructing alternative assumptions to generate new research questions (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011), there is an opportunity to deliberately integrate (critical) normative perspectives into paradox theory. Although paradox scholars have begun to explore the role of moral emotions in paradox responses (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Pradies, 2023), the moral dimension of paradox remains generally undertheorized. Expanding on the predominantly strategic perspective of paradox management, the question of how responses to paradoxes are evaluated from a normative standpoint becomes central. Businesses are increasingly expected to address major grand challenges, often without a clear consensus on the best approach to tackle them (Ferraro et al., 2015). As these grand challenges unveil deep societal divisions and conflicts, organizations face normative dilemmas in contexts where there is no clear consensus on the best course of action (Schwoon et al., 2023). The paradox community has a unique opportunity to contribute to this debate by exploring the normative quality of paradox responses.
Considering the significant role of decision-making in responding to paradoxes as instances of ethical deliberation (Habermas, 2003), a strong normative perspective (Forst, 2011) moves beyond merely describing decision-making processes to developing criteria for assessing their normative quality (Schwoon et al., 2023). For instance, Mena and Palazzo (2015) apply the criteria of inclusion, procedural fairness, consensual orientation, and transparency to evaluate the input legitimacy of a multi-stakeholder initiative. Criteria such as these can help evaluate the normative quality of the organizational decision-making process of how to respond to a paradox. Habermas’s (1985) discourse ethics, which emphasizes the significance of attaining mutual understanding, equality, and respect for all participants in ethical decision-making processes, can offer criteria for evaluating paradox responses and power imbalances in paradox management (Berti & Simpson, 2021).
Besides Habermasian discourse ethics (Habermas, 1985), more critical and holistic (meta)ethical approaches, such as (intersectional-)feminist theories (Acker, 2016; Bell et al., 2018; Crenshaw, 1997; Fotaki & Harding, 2017) can equally help challenge the normative premises underlying paradox management. For instance, while paradox theory has begun to emphasize an inter-relational approach to paradox (Brandl et al., 2022; Pamphile, 2022), exploring Barad’s (2007) concept of intra-action—the mutual constitution of entangled agency—allows for the conceptualization of paradoxes as phenomena that emerge through the dynamics between human and non-human entities. Building on the idea of co-constitution, intra-action understands the emergence of phenomena such as paradoxes as a collective endeavor. It values collective action and solidarity as key to combating injustice and oppression, highlighting the significance of collective responses to paradoxes rather than shifting responsibility to a single actor or organization. Moreover, following Acker (2016), who argues that organizational structures are not gender neutral, paradox scholars can explore how contradictory yet interrelated organizational elements reflect deeper gender inequities. Taking such an approach would thus allow for an examination of how deeply rooted organizational paradoxes maintain gender differences within organizations.
While I am only scratching the surface here, I argue that developing criteria for the normative evaluation of paradox management and adopting more critical perspectives on paradox can enable the paradox community to make significant contributions toward addressing societal divisions and persistent conflicts. Such insights may, in turn, enhance research on polarization and societal divisions that provide the backdrop for specific paradoxes (Sharma et al., 2021). As such, I believe that, by taking these steps forward, the paradox community has a unique opportunity to develop more comprehensive and effective strategies to help tackle systemic inequalities and injustice.
Developing a more granular perspective on paradox responses
Building on my critique of the hegemony of the both/and approach and its limitations in dealing with complex, inter-organizational paradoxes, I propose two avenues forward. First, I recommend that paradox scholars empirically explore the boundary conditions of both/and for different classes of phenomena at different levels of analysis and the potential negative ramifications of embracing tensions. Second, I suggest exploring different levels of granularity in responding to paradoxes to develop a more nuanced approach, one that is better attuned to the dynamic interplay of various response patterns.
Exploring the limitations of both/and approaches enables paradox scholars to develop a more critical perspective on the supposed panacea of embracing tensions and to consider potential unintended consequences, as exemplified by the critique of microfinancing (Hickel, 2015). The dark sides of paradox (Berti & Simpson, 2021; Gaim et al., 2021; Ungureanu et al., 2018) have already started to provide insights into how addressing paradoxes can result in dysfunctional dynamics and harm the focal organization. Expanding on these initial findings, I propose analyzing paradoxes on both temporal and spatial scales, capturing long-term effects as well as cascading or spatially remote effects of paradox management. While both/and approaches might seem successful in the short run, examining their long-term influence on an organization is crucial, as the relationship between paradoxical poles can change over time (Kilminster et al., 2024) or shift in unexpected ways (Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). Moreover, it is important to consider spatial scales, such as tensions between local and global or part and whole. For instance, response strategies may yield positive outcomes in one part of an organization, while other departments or levels, such as middle managers, may experience pressure to solve an unsolvable task (Gaim et al., 2021). Especially when addressing complex societal challenges, it becomes evident that both/and approaches might be overly simplistic and lack the complexity to adequately capture phenomena in their entirety (Jarzabkowski et al., 2023), thus revealing significant limitations. In addition to empirically examining the boundary conditions and limitations of both/and, I suggest in general incorporating a more granular perspective on paradox responses to overcome the hegemony and myopia of the both/and conception.
The existing paradox literature predominantly juxtaposes both/and and either/or approaches (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Even so, some scholars recognize additional strategies like “more/than” approaches (Putnam et al., 2016). Incorporating the concept of resisting paradoxes (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2016), which embodies a “neither/nor” approach, demonstrates the diverse array of potential responses to paradoxes. Instead of analyzing these approaches in isolation, I suggest a more fine-grained approach that is sensitive to the interplay of actions at a lower level of analysis. For example, organizations might combine different approaches over time, or different groups or members might engage with the paradox in distinct ways, thereby generating a cumulative response at the organizational level. Taking a historical approach, Kilminster et al. (2024, p. 27) reveal the patterned nature of paradox responses that accumulate over time and highlight how responses to paradox are interconnected, building “upon each other, consolidating an acceptable way of responding to the paradox.” Distinguishing between levels of granularity in paradox responses enhances the analysis of management strategies and adds complexity, moving beyond the rather simplistic both/and approach around individual responses to isolated paradoxes. Introducing the dimension of granularity to paradox responses is thus crucial for revealing alternative and evolving approaches to paradox, which might build on sequences of response patterns or cumulative patterns over time (Kilminster et al., 2024). This more fine-grained and processual perspective on paradox responses overcomes the reification tendencies of current paradox theory (Cunha & Putnam, 2019) and in doing so opens up fruitful avenues for conceptualizing paradoxes not as stable poles, but as evolving patterns or dynamics.
Concluding, I present two approaches to address the hegemony of both/and in paradox management. First, I propose critically exploring the boundary conditions of both/and approaches and recognizing their potential adverse outcomes on different spatial and temporal scales. Second, I suggest considering different levels of response granularity, allowing scholars to analytically capture cumulative response patterns over time. In addition to both/and, these responses might involve a dynamic interplay of either/or, more/than, and neither/nor patterns, showcasing a wide variety of paradox responses across organizations that build on each other.
Conclusion
This paper aims to intervene in current paradox theory and research with the objective of sparking reflection and cultivating a more critical and nuanced research agenda. My intention has been to push the boundaries of paradox theory and research to problematize its conceptual universality, implicit normativity, and the hegemony of the both/and perspective. Offering provocations on each aspect, I propose three avenues to advance the paradox research agenda, fostering greater interdisciplinary connections and ensuring its transformative potential.
While the paradox community has started to incorporate power into the discourse (Berti & Simpson, 2021), these developments remain tentative and have not yet led to a radical turn in paradox research and theory. Problematizing the key premises of paradox theory and research represents only the first step towards applying more powerful critical theoretical approaches and hopefully creates an opening within the paradox community that leverages the impulses and potential pathways I suggest. Besides applying rather “traditional” approaches such as discourse ethics (Habermas, 1985), I see great potential in drawing on Barad’s feminist materialist theory (Barad, 2007; Harris & Ashcraft, 2023). The concept of intra-action allows researchers to explore the emergence of paradoxes as a dynamic entanglement where “there is no inside, no outside” (Barad, 2007, p. 396), valuing the impossibility of an absolute separation of entities. Considering paradoxes as opposite, interrelated poles (Smith & Lewis, 2011), critical methodological approaches such as “diffraction” enable paradox scholars to better understand how opposition and difference of poles are being created in the world as well as their effects (Haraway, 1997). I believe these directions have the potential to productively expand paradox research, and in ways that bring in a more distinct critical orientation to the field.
I am aware of the challenging role this critique presents, as I consider myself part of the paradox family while attempting to step outside and critique its theoretical foundations. However, the paradox community has a crucial role in addressing emerging societal tensions, wicked problems, and growing polarization. To provide sustainable solutions for such phenomena, paradox scholars need to engage with critique from within and outside their field to preserve the theory’s generative potential (Cornelissen et al., 2021). Like any emerging research community, paradox research needed to draw boundaries to separate it from other schools of thought and disciplines and demonstrate internal cohesion; however, the both/and paradigm has, to some extent, exacerbated these processes and now needs to be rethought, I argue, as it might otherwise create a stalemate for the field. While the heart of paradox theory—the maxim of embracing tensions through both/and—proposes the integration of opposing perspectives, it suffers from a blind spot that leads to the discrimination of ideas. By categorically postulating both/and as the only or best way, other options are excluded which betrays the principle of accepting opposites (Berti, 2021, p. 38). Uncritically following both/and solutions, which inherently build on consensus, tends to cover conflicting lines of thought and reinforce cohesion within a research community instead of leveraging friction. Moreover, while the premise of integrating opposing views seems noble and optimistic, I believe that not all contradictory yet interrelated perspectives can or should be embraced, nor reconciled for that matter. Langley (2021, p. 169) summarizes her doubts about both/and with a French hunting expression: “When you chase two hares at once, you catch neither.” My intention is, however, not to tear down the entire theoretical pillars of paradox theory but to provoke a discussion that pushes us to the edges and maybe even beyond. Young researchers like myself (at least academically young) often feel the need to adapt to existing structures and adhere to established assumptions. However, I see great potential in embracing the paradox of “critical naivety.” While engaging with growing pains and questioning our own beliefs and taken-for-granted presumptions are often seen as painful processes, I believe that chasing the light (like a runner in the night) can also bring joy and satisfaction. To use the words of the Boss: “Mama always told me not to look into the sights of the sun Woah, but Mama, that’s where the fun is.”
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I want to express my deepest appreciation for the feedback from the editorial team and the two anonymous reviewers. Your constructive and thought-provoking comments were crucial in developing the manuscript and helping me find my voice in this critique. I am also grateful to Daniel Geiger, Matthias Wenzel, and Katrin Heucher, as well as to the participants of the EGOS Paradox Sub-theme 2021, AMOR 2021, and my cherished paradox reading group, for their insightful comments, criticisms, and suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper. A special and very personal acknowledgment goes to Ferran Torres for the many intense discussions on this paper and for the emotional support through all the ups and downs—all Springsteen lyrics are dedicated to you!
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
