Article Title:
Exploring Paradox: Toward A More Comprehensive Guide
Author:
Marianne W. Lewis, University of Cincinnati
Academy of Management Review
2000, Volume 25, No. 4 760-778
Prepared By:
Jeff McLean
Abstract:
“Paradox” appears increasingly in organizational studies, often to describe conflicting demands,
opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings. This article helps researchers move beyond
labeling – to explore paradoxes and contribute insights more in tune with organizational complexity and
ambiguity.
Key Terms:
 Paradox:
 Denotes contradictory yet inter-related elements
 Elements which seem logical in isolation, but absurd and irrational when appearing
simultaneously

Key Researchers:
1- Ford and Backoff (1988) –
a. Defines paradox: some “thing” that is constructed by individuals when oppositional
tendencies are brought into recognizable proximity through reflection or interaction
b. Any action, any act of cognition, definition, or concept is based on and establishes
distinctions. Thus the very actions of organizing involve the drawing of distinctions;
organization itself is a source of tension
2- Kelly (1955) –
a. Personal construct: most actors accentuate contradictions by interpreting data
3- Bartunek (1988) –
a. Frames of reference or schemes enable actors to make sense of complex realities,
but they are biasing and, once entrenched, become highly resistant to change
4- Ford and Ford (1994)
a. Explains that distinctions “resides in the observer, not the observed”
5- Weick & Westley (1996(
a. Actors typically define phenomena by explaining what it is not. For example – by
differentiating trust from mistrust or discord from harmony – sensations that often
coexist – paradoxical tensions – “reveal the limitations of conventional grammar
based on conventional logic”
6- Putman (1986) summarizes three interrelated types of tensions:
i. Self-referential loops: operate when contradictions are embedded within a
cohesive statement, concept, or process
ii. Mixed messages: denote inconsistencies between statements or between
verbal and nonverbal responses that appear during social interactions
iii. System contradictions: entrenched “within the goals, reward systems,
resource demands and division of labor of an organizations
7- Argyris (1993) defenses denote “any policy or action that prevents someone from
experiencing embarrassment or threat, and simultaneously prevents anyone from
correcting the causes of the embarrassment or threat”
8- Vince and Broussine (1996) categorized six defensive reactions toward paradox
a. Splitting – future polarizing contradictions – ie forming subgroups
b. Projection – signifies the transfer of conflicting attributes or feelings, often onto a
scapegoat or repository of bad feelings
c. Repression – denial denotes block of awareness
d. Regression – resorting to actions or understanding which provided security in the
past
e. Reaction formation – entails manifesting feeling or practice opposite to the
threatening one
f. Ambivalence – compromise of conflicting emotions with “luke-warm” reactions that
lose the vitality of extremes
9- Bateson (1972) paradoxical tensions may reveal the need for learning, yet actors often use
their extant cognitive and behavioral frames to construct new frames, trapping them within
a double blind.
Article Objectives:
1- Develop a framework which clarifies the nature of paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles,
and their management.
2- Review studies in which paradoxes spurred change and plurality.
3- Outline strategies for identifying and representing paradox.
Article Summary:
1. Overview:
b. Paradox offers a potentially powerful framework for examining plurality and change
c. Individuals, groups and organizations are inherently paradoxical
d. Abandon the notion that change is smooth
e. Paradox has become an overused word
f. Researchers use paradox to describe conflicting demands, opposing perspectives
i. Few explore them at greater depths requiring them to answer:
1. What is a paradox?
2. How might a paradox serve as a framework?
3. How might researchers actively seek out paradox and build
concepts and theories which reflect the intricacies of organizational
life?
2- Tensions, Reinforcing Cycles, and their Management: A Paradox Framework
a. Introduction:
i. Researchers view paradox as:
1. Psychologists stress the cognitive nature of paradox, examining
impacts and tensions on creativity and mental health
2. Organizational studies, research define as:
a. Contradictions embedded within a statement, human
emotions, organizational practices
b. Observation that counters common beliefs
c. An unintended consequence
ii. The above chart – by linking management back to tensions, the framework
depicts exploration itself as paradoxical
1. It is an ongoing journey
b. Tensions – The Underlying Source of Paradox
i. Paradoxical tensions are perceptual – that is cognitively or socially
constructed polarities that mask simultaneity of conflicting truths
ii. Language feeds the tendency to polarize
iii. In organizational studies – distinctions are apparent in such polar constructs
as quality/cost, differentiation/integration, stability/change and
cohesion/divisions.
iv. Putman (1986) summarizes three interrelated types of tensions:
1. Self-referential loops: operate when contradictions are embedded
within a cohesive statement, concept, or process
2. Mixed messages: denote inconsistencies between statements or
between verbal and nonverbal responses that appear during social
interactions
3. System contradictions: entrenched “within the goals, reward
systems, resource demands and division of labor of an organizations
c. Reinforcing Cycles: The Negative Dynamics of Paradox
i. According to Freudian psychology, paradoxical tensions endanger the ego,
producing anxiety that naturally raises actors’ defenses
d. Management: Tapping the Positive Potential Paradox
i. Managers need to recognize and be comfortable with tensions and anxieties
they provoke
ii. Paradox management – researchers suggest three, often interrelated means
1. Acceptance helps members avoid debates, which might open
Pandora’s box and spark vicious cycles and play through paradox
2. Another call for actors to confront paradox – discussing their
tensions to socially construct a more accommodating understanding
3. Transcendence implies the capacity to think paradoxically
3- Paradoxes, Change, and Plurality: A Review of Exemplars
a. Studies researchers explore how disruptions expose tensions within organizations
and how ambiguity fosters multiple, often conflicting interpretations of phenomena
b. Learning paradoxes revolve around processes of sensemaking, innovation, and
transformation that reveal interwoven tensions between old and new.
c. Paradoxes:
i. Of Learning – a key source of learning paradoxes is tension between old and
new – a struggle between the comfort of the past and the uncertainty of the
future
1. The more actors stress their core capabilities, the more they invoke
their flip side: core rigidities
2. Three elements that aid social reframing: shock, open
communications and experimentation
ii. Of Organizing – if we use paradox framework, organizing appears to
inherently juxtapose contradictions
1. Tensions between control and flexibility underlie paradoxes of
organizing, typically manifested as mixed messages and system
contradictions
2. Three methods appear to help actors mange paradoxes of
belonging: maintaining a task focus, valuing differences and
reducing power discrepancies
3. From a paradoxical perspective, valuing difference means
appreciating varied perspectives and capabilities rather than
accentuating personal and ethnic distinctions
iii. Of Belonging – in contemporary organizations blurring hierarchical,
occupational, and national distinctions intensify the paradoxical nature of
social relationships
1. In multinational organizations globalizations appears to provoke
similar tensions
2. Individual expression, however engenders group conflict capable of
fostering more accommodating and novel understandings and
disrupting group decision making and performance
4- Identifying and Representing Paradox: Exploration Strategies - Identifying paradox means
recognizing and interpreting tensions, and representation signifies methods of
conceptualizing, mapping and theorizing paradox
a. Identification: Narrative, Psychodynamic and Multiparadigm Approaches
i. Exemplars depict three potentially valuable approaches for identifying –
narrative, psychodynamic and multi-paradigm
ii. Irony as a clue to paradoxical tensions operating in actors’ cognitive and
emotional domains, defining irony as a form of humor
iii. A paradigm denotes a way of thinking about phenomena based on distinct
epistemological and methodological assumptions
iv. By using multiple paradigms, Ybema recognized that “the complexity of
group membership, the ambiguity of rules and rituals and the coexistence of
common and contrasting interests and identities are all reason to expect
unity and division to occur successively or simultaneously