Paradoxical Leadership and the Competing Values Framework

Ambidexterity

Ambidexterity can be understood as a form of managerial and organizational flexibility. Ambidexterity has been a topic of ongoing attention (Good & Sharma, 2010; Kaiser, Lindberg, & Craig, 2007; Zaccaro, Foti, & Kenny, 1991; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991). Birkinshaw and Gupta (2013) define ambidexterity as “an organization’s capacity to address two organizationally incompatible objectives equally well” (p. 291). Thus, paradox and ambidexterity share the need to address competing, seemingly paradoxically crucial yet incompatible objectives. Yet Birkinshaw and Gupta align organizational considerations with managerial action when they note:

Essentially ambidexterity provides a normative perspective about on how organizations function. It says that managers are making choices and trade-offs among competing objectives, and when they do their job well they override the organization’s tendency to go down the path of least resistance (p. 293).

Research on ambidexterity by Tushman, Smith, and Binns (2011) suggests that the ability of senior leadership teams to embrace tension between old states and activities and new ones is a key predictor of firm success. They note that firms “thrive” when senior teams can contend with this duality and they must “embrace inconsistency by maintaining multiple and often conflicting strategic demands”(p. 76). O’Reilly and Tushman (2011) also note that ambidexterity is behaviorally enacted and strongly influenced by leadership style. They hold that a key leadership quality is “the ability of the senior leadership to tolerate and resolve the tensions arising from separate alignments” (p. 76). Meta-analytic work by Junni, Sarala, Taras, and Tarba (2013) finds that, broadly speaking, ambidexterity seems to positively affect performance.

Yet ambidexterity connotes more decidedly single-loop aims (Argyris & Schon, 1978, 1996) than paradox. Ambidexterity primarily treats dual or binary options as given and assumes that attending to both objectives equally well, ought to be the goal. Thus ambidexterity is a response to largely binary tensions with the aim of more skillfully addressing competing dualities by attending to both sides of a competing tension in a balanced not differential manner. A paradox perspective allows for a broader range of possible responses. Although both perspectives recognize competing tensions and dualism, a paradoxical approach may identify an even broader range of dilemmatic tensions and provide varied, changing, differential, or attenuated responses.

Complexity

Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) identify the need for leadership to account for and contend with complexity given the increasingly interdependent, knowledge-based, world. Invoking McKelvey and Boisot’s (2003) “law of requisite complexity,” they assert, “It takes complexity to defeat complexity.” (Uhl-Bien et al., p. 301). This builds on a long-standing call for increased cognitive and behavioral complexity in the conceptualization and study of leadership (Dennison et al., 1995; Hooijberg, Bullis, & Hunt, 1999; K. A. Lawrence, Lenk, & Quinn, 2009; Quinn, 1988). Dennison et al. (1995) note that increased cognitive complexity is surely necessary to address increasing social and organizational complexity but cognitive advances alone are insufficient because leadership is performative. Thus behavioral complexity is needed because “we must conceive and perform” (p. 524). This perspective posits that effective leaders are those who have the cognitive as well as the behavioral capacity to recognize and react to paradox, contradiction, and complexity in their environments. This premise has garnered empirical support (Dennison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; K. A. Lawrence et al., 2009; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996).

Paradox

More overtly paradoxical conceptualizations of leadership have begun to come into view. Smith and Lewis (2012) suggest that a paradoxical view of leadership is needed. They assert that “managing paradoxical tensions also helps individuals, groups, and firms to be flexible and resilient, fostering more dynamic decision-making” (2011, p. 394). Initial empirical studies employing a paradox perspective support this view (Luscher & Lewis, 2008; Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote, 2011; Kan & Parry, 2004).

Smith, Besharov, Wessels, and Chertok (2012) begin to develop a paradoxical model of leadership as it relates to social enterprise. Social ventures contend with the tension of juggling financial and social demands. Smith et al. assert that social entrepreneurs would do well to develop the “meta-skills of acceptance, differentiation, and integration” (p. 466) in order to move beyond formal rationalist mental models, see synergies and possibilities beyond dichotomous tensions, and explore generative potential in paradox. Although Smith et al. constrain their focus to social enterprise, they acknowledge that a range of organizations “embody multiple, conflicting values, identities, norms, routines, and structures” (p. 476) including health care organizations, higher education organizations, and arts organizations.

Ambidexterity, flexibility, and complexity including cognitive and behavioral complexity all paint a picture of leadership that acknowledges and capitalizes on paradox. As a more decidedly paradoxical conception of leadership comes to light, I look to the CVF as a resource for leadership development from a paradoxical perspective.

The CVF Encourages Greater Cognitive and Behavioral Complexity

The management skills assessment that accompanies the CVF (Cameron et al., 2011) provides a profile that identifies management and leadership skills that respondents have developed to differing degrees. The CVF expands cognitive complexity and encourages behavioral complexity by identifying management skills and corresponding leadership roles and behaviors. Therefore, the CVF provides a developmental and perceptual roadmap that provides a reasonably concrete description of behavior and skill that a respondent could develop to improve their leadership skills.

Furthermore, the CVF enables respondents to recognize that they may underperceive areas of skill that they do not strongly exhibit. It thereby provides developmentally adapted feedback to respondents about areas of skill and behavior to which they may be comparatively blind outside of their dominant areas of strength. Table 1 provides an illustration.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Competing Values Framework, Management Skills/Model, Leadership Roles/Behaviors.

Clan/Collaborate	Adhocracy/Create
Foster commitment and cohesion through supportive interpersonal relationships, develop human capital, nurture a collaborative culture	Promote change, encourage adaptability, innovation, risk taking, visionary thinking, and symbolic leadership
Management skills: Manage development of others, interpersonal relationships and teams	Management skills: Manage innovation, continuous improvement, the future
Management model: Human relations	Management model: Open systems
Leadership roles: Mentor, facilitator	Leadership roles: Innovator, broker
Leadership behaviors: Develop subordinates, communicate effectively, foster interpersonal and self-understanding; manage conflict, foster participative decision making, build teams	Leadership behaviors: Think creatively, create change; build a power base, negotiate agreement, present ideas
Hierarchy/Control	Market/Compete
Establish/maintain stability, continuity, carefully controlled processes, precise objectives, discipline	Improve productivity, increase profitability through a focus on competition, pressure to achieve, power and politics, external stakeholders
Management skills: Manage coordination, control systems, acculturation	Management skills: Manage customer service, energize employees, manage competitiveness
Management model: Internal process	Management model: Rational goal
Leadership roles: Monitor, coordinator	Leadership roles: Director, producer
Leadership behaviors: Manage personal, collective, organizational performance; manage projects, design work	Leadership behaviors: Delegate effectively, design and organize, envision and plan; work productively, foster good work environment, manage time

Source. Adapted from Cameron and Lavine (2006), Cameron and Quinn (2011), and Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath, and St. Clair (2010).

The developmental assessment that the CVF can provide enables respondents to see behaviors they may enact and roles they may fulfill with varying degrees of skill. The CVF provides a description of roles and behavior such that those using the framework may gain a provisional sense of behavior and accompanying roles that may be unfamiliar to them. This is consonant with findings from developmental stage models of leadership that a sufficiently specific articulation of leadership behaviors, roles, and states accelerates leadership development as it provides scaffolding to support new leader behaviors (Kegan, 1983, Kegan & Lahey, 2002; Rooke & Torbert, 2005; Torbert, 2004).

The CVF Heightens Awareness of Dynamic Tensions Within Key Managerial and Leadership Skills

Quinn et al. (2010) describe paradoxical assumptions that are basic to the CVF. The first such assumption is a both/and rather than either/or logic (Bartunek, 1988; Luscher et al., 2008). The CVF is influenced by and represents an integration of aspects of widely used models: human relations, internal process, open system, and rational goal (see Table 1; Quinn, 1988; Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1983). Yet it differs from and transcends models that assume a predominant or best organizational action or managerial approach. Quinn et al. (2010) note:

Complex situations require complex responses. Sometimes organizations benefit from stability, and sometimes they benefit from change. Often organizations need both stability and change at the same time. In contrast to earlier approaches, the development of the competing values framework did not assume that stability and change were mutually exclusive, an either/or decision. (p.12)

Thus the CVF is based on a core assumption of dynamic tension (Cameron et al., 2011). It represents an integration of ideas that attend to opposing concerns. It treats the friction, trade-off, and simultaneity of demands represented by these concerns as the core value of the model (Quinn, Kahn, & Mandl, 1994). Effectiveness is increased by employing aspects of the four integrated yet opposing models simultaneously (Quinn et al., 2010).

The CVF uses the term competing values because the quadrants can appear in conflict. Organizations and their leaders want to be adaptable and flexible but also stable and controlled. They want innovation and change but also efficient internal processes. The quadrants diagonally across from one another represent the greatest opposing differences. Therefore, focusing on internal cultural (see Figure 1) in the upper left quadrant (Clan/Collaborate) is in greatest opposition to external competition and market focused result on the lower right (Market/Compete). Similarly, the quadrant focused on organizational control (Hierarchy/Control) is in most opposition its diametric opposite (Adhocracy/Create). Therefore the CVF allows leaders to see that strong action in one domain carries a particular and specific risk of comparatively less action in the diametrically opposing quadrant.

For example, focusing on in-house culture carries a risk of neglecting the competitive landscape. Creating assiduous control systems often stifles the room for bold, creative action. The CVF can help leaders see that strengths often carry accompanying risks of deficit or inattention to conceptual opposites and deficits can help explain why the value of some strengths may be blunted if areas of deficit are profound.

If areas of weakness are substantial they can hinder the success of strengths. An important caveat to the CVF is that focusing on strengths when corresponding weaknesses are developed to a minimal or average level can often be adaptable. Yet neglecting areas of deficit altogether is often problematic. Certainly no single individual can possess across-the-board strengths, but average or adequate performance represents a baseline condition fundamentally different from deficit or weakness. Even if strengths are profound they are often not enough to overcome areas of significant weakness. Remedial attention to any significant area of weakness is essential to building leadership strength.

Working to overcome areas of relative weakness such that they can be converted into average or adequate performance can help leaders see more possibilities for action when core areas of strength fail to produce desired outcomes. This is one illustration of the comparative behavioral complexity that the CVF promotes. Areas of weakness are akin to a conceptual floor whereas areas of strength may be thought of as a ceiling. Although strengths may, in large measure, determine potential, that only holds true if the floor is stable or the distance from the floor makes the ceiling easier to reach. Some of this logic is manifest in Herzberg’s (1964) well known two-factor motivation–hygiene theory. This work showed that a host of positive factors contribute to motivation and satisfaction at work (the ceiling), but the floor is also determined by potential sources of dissatisfaction. The CVF surfaces an analogous set of tensions pertaining to strengths and weaknesses related to leadership and managerial skill development.

Paradox Is Made More Manageable Through the CVF

Lewis (2000) and Luscher and Lewis (2008) note that self- or social- reflection is needed for paradoxes to become apparent. The CVF provides a framework to encourage self-reflection and a comparative dimension that supports broader social- reflection. Furthermore, the deliberately opposing nature of the managerial models that influenced the development of the CVF ensure that a series of organizational and leadership dilemmas are likely to become apparent (see Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Competing Values Framework, Leadership, and Managerial Paradoxes.

Clan/Collaborate	Adhocracy/Create
Primary paradox: Need to allow for individuals to express their individuality, while needing some level of conformity in order for organization to move forward	Primary paradox: Promoting change and adaptability runs counter to stability and control
Increasing self-awareness and self-knowledge also increases our capacity to change, so in the process learning who we are, we become someone new	Expecting leaders to be powerful and at the same time being distrustful of powerful leaders
Involving people in decision-making processes can increase the effectiveness of the decision but decease the efficiency of the process	Using routines and habits to improve creativity and innovation
Building an effective team may (temporarily) lead to reduced productivity or effectiveness as individuals are given the opportunity to develop new skills and abilities	Increasing resistance to change by increasing pressures to change
Hierarchy/Control	Market/Compete
Primary paradox: The need for adaptability and external support relative to the need for stability and control	Primary paradox: Increasing productivity and profitability while creating and sustaining employee commitment
Getting the details right by measuring and monitoring performance and keeping an eye on the big picture without getting bogged down in too many rules and procedures	Expecting the leader to provide a clear vision for the organization while wanting the vision to be based on participative processes
Working on cross-functional teams and special projects to help make improvements in organizational processes and still accomplishing day-to-day objectives	Making decisions and moving ahead while taking enough time to ensure that all the relevant facts have been appropriately analyzed
Following corporate policies and procedures and reinventing policies and procedures to be more effective and efficient	Using performance measurement systems to align individual goals with organizational goals without spending too much time on setting goals and reviewing performance

Source. Adapted from Quinn, Faerman, Thompson, McGrath, and St. Clair (2010)

This may seem like a simple “figure-ground” distinction where a degree of demarcation is needed for a phenomenon to be made visible. Yet Lewis (2000), citing Hatch and Ehrlich (1993), notes that “a key challenge when exploring paradox is locating and bracketing the phenomena” (p. 771). Therefore “building constructs that accommodate contradictions” (p. 773) is essential to conceptualizing paradox, and there has been a specific call for tools to aid in the management of paradox (Marsh & Macalpine, 1999). Quinn et al. (2010) acknowledge that a key strength of the CVF is that it is “flexible enough to accommodate change and still provides enough structure to help guide behavior (p. 15).” Similarly, Lewis (2000) posits that the CVF “expands understandings of distinct and mutually exclusive leadership styles, enabling examination of whether highly effective leaders behave more paradoxically than those who are less effective” (p. 773). This suggests that the CVF has the potential to support leadership development and further inquiry into paradoxical leadership

To date, there is mounting empirical evidence that supports the benefits of a paradoxical approach to leadership. Paradoxical frames consistently prime respondents to respond with greater creativity (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011). Paradoxical frames enhance complex thinking and enable people to see more complementary possibilities between opposing sources of tension (Kan & Parry, 2004; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011).

Dennison et al. (1995) contend that the complexity of the CVF allows leaders to “reframe underlying polar opposites such as stability and flexibility” (p. 527) and see leadership role and action as occurring along a much more nuanced continuum. Indeed, the authors empirically establish that “effective managerial leaders exhibit a behavioral structure with greater differentiation and complexity than their less effective counterparts” (p. 535). They use effectiveness evaluation data gathered from subject’s subordinates and supervisors to show that those deemed more effective behaved in accordance with more aspects and dimensions of the CVF. This holds promise that the range of actions, skills, and behaviors described by the CVF enable a broader repertoire of action that is, in fact, more skillful.

Implications for Practice

Each of the central points in this article are intended to guide practice. They strengthen a vision of paradoxical leadership and then provide a means via the CVF to deepen leadership practice that is more informed by paradox. Leadership practice can become even more effective were it to cultivate greater awareness of paradox and dynamic tension, and promote greater cognitive and behavioral complexity. The CVF provides a context to carry them out. Even those who have prior familiarity with the CVF should gain an enhanced sense through this article of how the CVF promotes not just leadership development generally but a more paradox-informed approach specifically.

Further Directions

I offer two sets of thoughts about further directions here. First, I offer a brief consideration of how the CVF might aid the further study and dissemination of a paradoxical perspective on leadership. Second, I offer consideration of dynamics of paradoxical leadership that could inform future exploration.

The CVF is widely used to guide practice and as a teaching tool. So it represents one concrete means to transmit and work with the concept of paradox. Thus the framework can be a useful tool for further the study and dissemination of a paradox perspective. Wisdom about how to attend to such tensions simultaneously and skillfully is an important leadership capacity. The ability to apply paradox can be developed through the CVF and then transferred to all manner of paradoxical realities. Furthermore, the CVF affords a useful source of empirical data to advance thinking about paradox especially given its wide use. The CVF isolates, and therefore sharpens, views of paradox to a relatively specific, recurring set of paradoxical tensions enshrined in the CVF (Lewis, 2000). The CVF and the paradoxical, competing tensions around which it is built have the potential to strengthen the scholarship and practice of leadership development, organizational change, and the role of paradox in organizational life. Ideally, this article aids in that effort.

Additionally, multiple scholarly explorations of paradox offer tripartite distinctions involving the management of paradox. I build on these by suggesting that the dynamics of awareness, exploration, and interpretation may aid the exploration of paradoxical leadership.

Lewis (2000) writes about acceptance, confrontation, and transcendence as it relates to paradox. During acceptance, parties acknowledge and learn to live with paradoxical tension. Confrontation represents an effort to mitigate paradoxical tensions by using reflection, critique, and even humor to reduce a sense of paralysis that can accompany paradoxical tension. Transcendence occurs with deeper second-order thinking (Argyris & Schon, 1978, 1996) where greater possibilities and perhaps complementary options can be seen within paradoxical tensions. In mild contrast, Smith et al. (2012) write of accepting, differentiating, and integrating. Accepting matches the approach of Lewis (2000). Smith et al. (2012) note that acceptance involves seeing both sides of a paradoxical dilemma as possible (Bartunek, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Luscher et al., 2008) and identifying expanded possibilities using a technique known as an abundance approach (Cameron et al., 2006). Differentiation involves trying to see both value and distinction between both sides of a paradoxical dilemma or tension. Integration involves trying to identify synergy or a learning stance based on trust, openness, and cultural sensitivity.

Inspired by these examples, I offer a tripartite distinction intended as a further direction that may hold particular use for viewing leadership and leadership development from a paradoxical perspective. Future exploration of paradoxical leadership may do well to consider the dynamics of awareness, exploration, and interpretation.

Awareness is inspired by Eisenhardt (2000), who notes that “paradox is neither a compromise nor a split between competing tensions but is, rather, an awareness of both (p. 704).”Awareness connotes a sense of equanimity or neutrality toward paradoxical tensions. It follows the observation by Kan and Parry (2004) that identifying paradoxes may not comprehensively satisfy organizational change but often has a significant impact. It is essential to identify or become aware of paradox. Although awareness may lead to acceptance, it allows that a broad range of possible responses may ensue including resistance and reframing.

Exploration builds on the distinction offered by Lewis (2000) that “paradox management involves exploring rather than suppressing tensions” (p. 764). Exploration implies that a range of possibilities, approaches, and stances may be explored relative to any given tension. This expansive quality also implies efforts to move beyond seeing dilemmas and tensions in purely binary terms and use exploration to consider more expansive reframing of dilemmas.

Interpretation, acknowledges that a key aspect of leadership is providing narration, or sense-making and sense-giving (Foldy, Goldman, & Ospina, 2008; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Sharma & Good, 2013; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005) by offering interpretative possibilities to followers. Interpretation bears likeness to political leadership (Ammeter, Douglas, Gardner, Hochwarter, & Ferris., 2002; Smircich & Morgan, 1982) where the core task of leaders is construed as the constructive management of shared meaning.

Although merely provisional, awareness, exploration, and interpretation seem to characterize key tasks of leaders operating from a paradoxical perspective. Thus they may represent ideas on which to build.

In The Age of Paradox, Handy (1994) writes, “Paradoxes are like the weather, something to be lived with, not solved, the worst aspects mitigated, the best enjoyed and used as clues to the way forward” (p. 13). Ideally the insights contained herein contribute to favorable conditions that support leaders to navigate and learn from paradox.