Integrating Dialectical and Paradox Perspectives on Managing Contradictions in Organizations

Abstract

We present a typology and process model that integrate dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Whereas paradox research depicts tensions between contradictory elements as irreconcilable and best managed through acceptance and synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays the relationship of such elements as adversarial and transformed through conflict. Our integrated typology and process model account for both dialectical and paradox approaches to managing contradictions and also identify two approaches, assimilation and adjustment, which combine the two. The model also identifies a key contingency, the expected distribution of power between contradictory elements, as a key influence on actors’ approaches to managing contradictions. For paradox researchers our integrated model emphasizes the need for more attention to the political, institutional, and social contexts of contradictions, practices for managing conflict, and transformation of organizational contradictions. Our integrated model suggests that dialectics researchers pay attention to the strategies managers use to productively manage tensions between contradictory elements, take a contingent view of transformation, and recognize that acceptance of contradiction may play a role in transformation. Hence our integrated model suggests a broadened agenda for both paradox and dialectics researchers.

Keywords

dialectics contradiction conflict paradox transformation

Introduction

In their study of the conflict between local television stations and the network that owned them, Lourenço and Glidewell (1975) illustrate the management of the organizational contradiction between autonomy and control. While the local stations sought autonomy, the network sought to exert control over the stations by supervising their operations, becoming involved in personnel decisions, and auditing their books. The local stations resisted these incursions, however, and lobbied for more autonomy. In addition, although they accepted the network’s legitimate authority, they resisted network demands that they perceived to be over-reaching. Through its resistance, one of the stations won authority for an important personnel decision, procured the resources necessary to customize its advertising, and gained control over its own news programming. Lourenço and Glidewell conclude that through conflict the parties developed innovative new arrangements which consisted of “a broader and more complex, mutually balancing power base and increased options for all involved, and … a deeper conception of legitimate authority, based on just demands for the expertise necessary to the overall common welfare, rather than on position alone” (Lourenço & Glidewell, 1975, p. 504).

Organizational contradictions, such as this tension between autonomy and control, can be viewed through multiple lenses. Management scholars taking a paradox perspective start from the premise that managers are most effective when they accept contradictory elements as simultaneously valid (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002) and manage them through a combination of differentiation and synergy, rather than trying to resolve the tension between them (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011). In contrast, as illustrated by the example above, dialectical perspectives view the dynamic relationship of these elements not as persistent coexistence in tension but rather as involving transformation through conflict. According to dialectical theory, innovation occurs through a process in which one element or “affirmation” unintentionally gives rise to its own opposite or “negation,” producing conflict and transformation—the establishment of a new element which transcends yet also preserves the affirmation and negation. The coercive control by the television network studied by Lourenço and Glidewell bred a counter-expression of belief in local control, and a process of confrontation that produced new arrangements which neither station owners nor network managers had initially foreseen, but which encompassed both of their interests.

In this paper we take the view that paradox and dialectics provide different yet equally and simultaneously valid lenses for understanding organizational contradictions. We seek to advance scholarship on the management of contradictions by identifying the similarities, differences, and complementarities of the two perspectives, and by presenting a typology and model which integrate them. Contradictions are defined as dynamic tensions between opposite elements that together form a unity and logically presuppose each other for their very existence and meanings (Werner & Baxter, 1994). They are inherent in human knowledge of reality as well as instantiated in practices, arrangements, and artifacts.

We recognize that some scholars have taken other views on integrating dialectics and paradox perspectives. Clegg and colleagues (2002) argue that the paradox perspective should supersede the dialectical perspective, writing that “the extremes of paradox are too pervasive to be integrated or willed away” (p. 491), as dialectical scholars might wish. They reason that the dialectical perspective has been “technologically outflanked in a world saturated with co-evolutionary presence, virtuality and simultaneity” (p. 498), and that upon close inspection synthesis is a bottom-up process which “does not create a new entity replacing and incorporating the two opposites that ground it” through dialectical transformation, but “rather emerges in the relationship between these two poles” (p. 495). Here we take a different viewpoint. We argue that transformation does not emerge “in the relationship” between the two poles, but rather is a new element which emerges from the relationship of the two poles. We note that the literature has provided instructive examples of the transformation of organizational contradictions (e.g., Lourenço and Glidewell’s (1975) study highlighted above). In addition, we note that the realities of organizational life differ greatly across contexts, and that while some parts of the world may be “saturated with co-evolutionary presence, virtuality, and simultaneity,” much of it is not, and therefore that the dialectical sequence has not been “technologically outflanked.”

Our integrated process model accounts for the dialectical sequence of affirmation, negation, and transformation, the paradoxical sequence of acceptance and synergy, and sequences which include elements of both. In addition, the model specifies an important contingency, the expected distribution of systemic power, which influences the approach taken to managing contradiction. Drawing on dialectics, the model also provides a role for the unintended consequences of action in understanding the outcomes of processes of managing contradictions. The model has important implications for dialectics and paradox researchers.

In the next section we briefly review and compare the paradox and dialectical perspectives, and then in the third section we present our typology and integrated model. In the paper’s fourth and final section we discuss the implications of our model and offer conclusions.

Juxtaposing Paradox and Dialectical Perspectives

Contradictions have long been at the heart of organizational theory. Pioneering scholars such as Taylor (1911), Fayol (1949), Follett (1941), and Barnard (1938) all were concerned with the tension between organizational effectiveness and employees’ welfare. Lewin (1943) conceptualized organizations as balanced between forces of resistance and change. The predecessors of structural contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Galbraith, 1977; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967) addressed the question of how to design organizations so that they achieve both operational stability and responsiveness to a changing environment. “Old” institutionalists such as Selznick confronted the “fundamental paradox” between structure and agency, characterizing this tension as “aris[ing] from the fact that rational action systems are inescapably imbedded in an institutional matrix” (Selznick, 1948, p. 25).

More recently organizational scholars have begun to study a range of organizational contradictions, including the tensions between exploitation and exploration (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009; Farjoun, 2010; March, 1991), competition and cooperation (Lado, Boyd, & Hanlon, 1997; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992), structure and agency (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007; Walker, Schlosser, & Deephouse, 2014), organizations’ private and social missions (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Donaldson & Preston 1995; Smith, Gonin, & Besharov, 2013), and designed versus emergent structures (de Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004; Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher, 2008; Weick, 1998, 2004).

Researchers have examined the management of organizational contradictions by applying paradox and dialectical perspectives. As we discuss below, the two provide alternative lenses; the paradox perspective focuses on the coexistence and ongoing management of tensions between opposite elements, while the dialectical perspective views these same tensions as transformed through conflict. This notwithstanding, the paradox and dialectical perspectives should not be viewed as dichotomous and mutually exclusive views on organizational contradictions. In fact, the two enjoy a rich and extensive shared history and, due to variety in each, have taken overlapping theoretical perspectives. Much of the scholarship in the late 1980s and early 1990s nominally taking a paradox perspective incorporated dialectical themes as well; for example, Quinn and Cameron’s seminal 1988 book took the view that paradoxes could be transformed. Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that dialectical synthesis is temporary because it preserves underlying core tensions. Poole and Van de Ven (1989) and Bledow and colleagues (2009) refer to dialectical synthesis as one means of addressing paradox.

While we remain cognizant of the variation within and overlap of perspectives, as we proceed in this paper we emphasize the particular streams within each perspective which enable us to draw contrasts and build richer theory. We now review these paradox and dialectical perspectives as they have become stylized in the literature. Table 1 compares the two perspectives as well as a third one, which we develop in this paper.

Table 1.

Comparison of Paradox, Dialectical, and Integrated Perspectives.

	Paradox Perspective	Dialectics Perspective	Integrated Model
Theoretical focus	Prescriptive, organizational. Focus on how organizations should manage contradictions	Descriptive, historical. Focus on how contradictions are transformed over time	Descriptive, multi-level. Focus on how organizations manage socially embedded contradictions, and how these contradictions change over time
Characterization of contradictions	Socially constructed. Conceptual opposites are embedded in organizational artifacts, practices, and arrangements. Tensions between contradictory elements become salient due to functional interdependence	Socially constructed, embedded, and complex. Conceptual opposites are embedded in material artifacts, practices, and arrangements, as well as in society’s institutional orders and the “social totality.” As contradictions deepen, they become salient to actors whose interests are not served by the dominant element	Socially constructed, embedded, and complex. Conceptual opposites are embedded in material artifacts, practices, and arrangements, as well as in society’s institutional orders and the “social totality.”
Sensemaking	Acceptance. Managers initially perceive contradictory elements to be irreconcilable but come to accept their coexistence as they recognize their importance and interdependence	Resistance. Proponents of the affirmation seek to maintain dominance, while proponents of the negation seek to challenge and overcome the affirmation	Boundedly rational partisan managers accept or resist coexistence of contradictory elements based on institutional and organizational histories, which shape sensemaking approaches
Agency	Synergy. Actors differentiate and coordinate contradictory elements in order to produce mutually advantageous practices and arrangements	Mobilization and conflict. Partisan actors engage in politics and conflict in an effort to dominate and overcome proponents of the contradictory element	Boundedly rational, partisan actors engage in synergy, mobilization and conflict, adjustment, or assimilation based on their sensemaking approaches and the distribution of systemic power
Outcome of process of change	Ongoing reproduction of dynamic tension between contradictory elements	Conflict between contradictory elements unintendedly produces a new element, the transformation, which serves as the new “affirmation” as the dialectical process recycles	Dynamic tension between contradictory elements can be reproduced, revised, or transformed. Outcomes are difficult to predict because management approaches have unintended consequences

The paradox perspective

The paradox perspective has deep historical roots. It is often associated with Eastern philosophical traditions such as Taoism, which posits that “the two sides of any contradiction exist in an active harmony, opposed but connected and mutually controlling” (Lewis, 2000; Peng & Nisbett, 1998, p. 743). The perspective also is found in Western philosophy dating back to Ancient Greece (Hughes & Brecht, 1975; Salmon, 2001). Existential philosophers such as Sartre (1993) were concerned with paradoxes such as the predicament that humans cannot escape their own freedom, and paradox played a central role in the psychotherapeutic theories and practices of Jung, Freud, Adler, and others (Smith & Berg, 1987, chapter 2). Paradox provided a source of creativity for artists such as Picasso and van Gogh and musicians including Beethoven and Mozart (Rothenberg, 1979).

Paradox was introduced into the management and organizations literature in the late 1980s (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Van de Ven, 1983). A paradox is defined as “contradictory yet interrelated elements—elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously” (Lewis, 2000, p. 760). While paradox research in management and organization studies encompasses a rich variety of theoretical perspectives and methods, in this paper we focus on a stream of research that takes a more prescriptive and managerial perspective. This stream, which we trace to the work of Lewis (2000), focuses on how organizations experiencing persistent tensions between seemingly irreconcilable contradictory elements accept and productively manage these tensions (Clegg et al., 2002; Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

Characterization of contradictions. Paradox scholars take the view that contradictory elements which inherently are interdependent and together form a unity tend to be perceived by actors as distinct (Lewis, 2000). These perceptual contradictions then are embedded by actors in material structures, cultures, practices, and artifacts within the organization (Clegg, 2002; Johnston & Selsky, 2005; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Westenholz, 1993). The tension between these contradictory elements becomes salient to actors under conditions which accentuate the elements’ functional interdependence. Smith and Lewis (2011) identify these conditions as a plurality of perspectives, resource scarcity, and rapid change. An example of an organizational paradox is the paradox of learning, which refers to the tension between stability and predictability on the one hand and generativity and adaptability on the other (Smith & Lewis, 2011).

Cognitive acceptance. Paradox research finds that initially, the actors experiencing newly salient contradictions cannot reconcile contradictory elements and react to them with confusion, ignorance, anxiety, and defensiveness (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Berg, 1987; Vince & Broussine, 1996). As they come to recognize the interdependence and persistent coexistence of the elements, however, these actors come to “accept paradox and ‘critically examin[e] entrenched assumptions to construct a more accommodating perception of opposites’” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 764). Lüscher and Lewis (2008) describe a cognitive process of “sparring” in which linear thinking and decision paralysis give way to reflexive and strategic questioning, and actors facing seemingly impossible choices come to accept paradox and view these choices as more tenable. This cognitive ability has been described as “paradoxical cognition” (Lewis, 2000), “both/and” thinking (Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, & Thakor, 2006), and “either/and” thinking, with “either” indicating that the opposed elements are distinct and “and” signifying their unity (Li, 2011; Jing & Van de Ven, 2014).

Paradox research has emphasized that the cognitive ability to accept the coexistence of contradictory elements sets the stage for using the tension between these elements as an opportunity for creativity. Quinn and Cameron (1988) argue that acceptance can induce “a synergistic or ‘flow’ state” (Csikzentmihalyi, 1976) in which “complex contradictory forces … produce a source of creative energy” (p. 298). Eisenhardt and Wescott (1988) elaborate that the simultaneous pursuit of multiple, contradictory goals drives the questioning of assumptions, broad search, greater insight into phenomena and relationships, and continuous experimentation. They note that “the major effect of creating paradoxical demands is creativity. People are forced to look beyond the obvious and to reexamine … basic assumptions” (p. 173).

Synergy. Researchers have found that organizations tend to address paradoxes through synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011), which we define as coordinating distinct contradictory elements in ways that are mutually advantageous.¹ We take “synergy” to include forms of joint action such as cooperation and collaboration as well as dialogical approaches to problem solving such as the strategic dialectical inquiry of Socrates, and Argyris and Schön’s (1996) action-science dialog (Nielsen, 1996). Paradox research has emphasized that synergy is a messy, ongoing process in which managers seek to “work through” (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008, p. 221) uncertainty and organizational conflict and politics (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Walker et al., 2014) to construct “a more workable certainty” that enables action (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008, p. 228).

Jarzabkowski and colleagues’ (2013) study of “Telco” attests to the messiness of synergy. Telco is a telecommunications company which undertook a major restructuring in response to a new regulation which required it to grant fair access to all broadband and telephony providers. This regulation produced tensions between the company’s divisions, with the new Distribution division motivated by the goal of fair access and the other divisions motivated by commercial objectives and wanting preferential treatment. Jarzabkowski and colleagues find that after conflict between the divisions became so hostile that Telco performance was severely threatened, divisional managers began to engage in dialog and “intensive interworking between divisions … such as working together to build more functionality into systems” (Jarzabkowski et al., p. 261).

Synergy does not necessarily involve direct joint action but may also involve structural arrangements such as task forces and central control (Lindblom, 1963). Smith and Lewis’s dynamic equilibrium model describes synergy as a process in which managers purposefully iterate between contradictory elements in order to ensure attention to both. This enables them to avoid “paralyzing and often vicious cycles” and instead initiate “virtuous cycles” of learning and enhanced organizational performance (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 761). Smith and Tushman (2005) advocate that the dual goals of exploitation and exploration be pursued through separate organizational architectures and integrated by top management. The study by Jarzabkowski and colleagues, just cited, found that after Telco’s senior managers realized that conflict threatened Telco’s goal achievement, they developed new rules which enabled divisional managers to accommodate each other’s objectives, relaxed rules which obstructed them from doing so, and arbitrated disputes. This paradoxical work enabled divisional managers to collaborate while preserving their identities and achieving their goals.

Paradox researchers also have found that synergy may take the form of complex leadership behaviors which incorporate contradictory elements. For example, Cameron and colleagues (2006) identify autonomous engagement, practical vision, teachable confidence, and caring confrontation as “paradoxical behaviors” that leaders engage in to effectively manage contradictions between differentiated units. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) find that the leaders of innovative product design firms employ pragmatic idealism, paradoxical vision, supportive communication, and complementary tactics at multiple levels of the organization to achieve both exploration and exploitation goals.

Dialectics

The dialectical perspective offers an alternative view of the management of tensions between contradictory elements. Like the paradox perspective, the dialectical perspective is rooted in the premise that human understanding of reality is composed of logically and socially constructed contradictions—opposed yet interdependent elements which presuppose each other for their existence and meanings. In dialectics, however, the relationship of contradictory elements plays out through a process in which actors espousing one element, the affirmation, engage in conflict with actors promoting the opposed element, the negation. This conflict releases the tension between the contradictory elements and produces a new set of arrangements and practices, the transformation.² While there exists a broad variety of dialectical perspectives (Nielsen, 1996), here we focus on the historical perspectives of Hegel and Marx, which provide a clear contrast to the paradox perspective.

Characterization of contradictions: Social construction, embeddedness, and complexity

According to dialectical perspectives, organizational contradictions arise when actors socially construct as contradictory the relationships among and between the discursive and material elements of organizations (Putnam, 2015), within and across levels of analysis (Benson, 1977). Hence, an organizational actor may experience a contradiction when she perceives a tension between an organizational unit’s practices and the unit’s rhetoric used to legitimate those practices; between two practices employed in that unit; between the elements (material and/or discursive) of two or more organizational units located at a single level of analysis (e.g., the contradictory goals and practices of two functional departments or operating units); between the material and/or discursive elements of organizing units located at different levels of analysis (e.g., the practices of a particular operating unit and the espoused logic of the parent organization); and between organizational elements and elements of the organization’s environment (e.g., an organization’s practices and institutional prescriptions of appropriate behavior). Hence we adopt the view of Putnam (2015) who, building upon her work with Fairhurst (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2014), posits a dialectical relationship in which the discursive and material elements of organizations are mutually influential and constitutive.

Benson (1977) stressed the socially embedded and complex nature of organizational contradictions. He recognized that any given contradiction is inextricably linked to many other contradictions, both within the organization and at other units and levels of analysis, which compose the “social totality.” Building upon Benson (1977), Seo and Creed (2002) situate organizational contradictions within structural contradictions in society. They invoke Friedland and Alford (1991), who theorized the contradictions within and between society’s major institutional orders (e.g., the church, the state, markets, professions). Seo and Creed identify contradictions between the material and discursive elements of institutional orders (e.g., corporate rhetoric about employee empowerment which is at odds with rigid operating procedures) as well as contradictions between institutional orders (e.g., tension between the workplace prescriptions of the church and market). Hence, from a dialectical perspective a particular organizational contradiction such as pressure to both earn high profits and make investments in environmental protection pits internal constituencies against one another, creates tensions for the organization in its interactions with disparate external stakeholders, and invokes societal tensions regarding, for example, the purpose of and relationship between business and government.

Politics and conflict

Unlike the paradox perspective which, as discussed, sees contradiction as addressed through synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays contradiction as addressed through processes of politics and conflict. Dialectical theory posits that power initially is concentrated behind one element of the contradiction, the affirmation. Expression of this element, however, inevitably invites the emergence of the contradictory element, the negation. According to Hegel this summoning is inevitable because the affirmation is inherently incomplete and imperfect as a principle for action. Hence, for example, an emphasis on stable conditions invites recognition of the need for change, an emphasis on a common organizational culture calls out an expression of distinct sub-cultures, and a focus on the goal of shareholder value alone breeds concern about the interests of employees and other stakeholders.

According to dialectical perspectives, actors espousing the negation develop the critical understanding that the affirmation does not serve their beliefs and interests and then engage in political action to build power so that they may challenge the affirmation. This political action is referred to as praxis, which is “the free and creative reconstruction of social patterns on the basis of a reasoned analysis of both the limits and the potentials of social forms” (Benson, 1977, p. 5.) Proponents of the negation become motivated to engage in praxis as contradictions become more pronounced (e.g., the link between poor working conditions and shareholders’ growing wealth is brought to light.) Social movements and institutional scholars have emphasized that framing and resource mobilization are central to the efforts of proponents of the negation to build political power. Framing involves shaping the accepted meanings of social issues and phenomena (Benford & Snow, 2000; Gamson, 1995; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Snow & Benford, 1988), while resource mobilization refers to building the networks of actors, organizations and resources needed to challenge incumbents and press for change (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996; McCarthy & Zald, 1973; Seo & Creed, 2002). Like the affirmation, the negation gives rise to its opposite. It motivates the “negation of the negation,” or efforts by proponents of the affirmation to intentionally suppress, oppress, or remove groups espousing the negation (Pratt & Foreman, 2000).

This view that actors make sense of the relationship of contradictory elements as adversarial may be traced back to the dialectical perspective’s emphasis on the social embeddedness and complexity of contradictions. Because the actors who experience contradictions are embedded in particular organizational cultures and institutional orders (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012), they have learned and come to take for granted particular assumptions about what is right and true. Further, they have made material commitments to these assumptions. As a result, they are prone to resist rather than accept the contradictory element. This is not to say that these actors are incapable of reflection upon and changes in their beliefs and actions, but rather to say that reflection tends to follow rather than precede the deepening of contradiction (Benson, 1977; Marx, 1979 [1859]; Seo & Creed, 2002).

Transformation

According to Marxian and Hegelian dialectical models, conflict between the affirmation and negation has the unintended consequence of producing a synthesis or transformation. This transformation is the reconciliation or dissolution of contradiction, or “the ordering of parts to form a new whole or ‘gestalt’” that neither side could have produced itself (Lourenço & Glidewell, 1975, p. 489; italics in original). Once produced, transformation becomes the new affirmation which is subsequently negated, as the dialectical process recycles (Benson, 1977; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Nielsen, 1996; Seo & Creed, 2002; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Transformation can occur only if proponents of both the affirmation and negation have the power to effectively confront each other, i.e., only in cases where proponents of the negation have succeeded in building the power needed to challenge the affirmation. When power is concentrated, the negation remains latent, and the tension between opposites is not engaged, and does not lead to transformation. Poole and Van de Ven (1989) address transformation when they propose that conceptual paradoxes can be resolved through the introduction of a new concept or perspectives which “dissolves or supersedes the opposition” between contradictory elements (p. 574).

The transformational potential of conflict lies in its ability to release emotional energy (Mason, 1996). When actors are energized by conflict, their group identity, commitment, and cohesiveness are strengthened. Drawing on Marx, Coser notes that “only by experiencing … antagonism … does the group (or class) establish its identity” (1957, p. 205), and, citing the sociologist of nationalist and race movements, Robert Park (1931, pp. 95–110), writes that the effect of struggle is “to arouse in those involved a lively sense of common purpose and … the inspiration of a common cause” (Coser, 1957, p. 205). Philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel argued that conflict “allows us to prove our strength consciously and only thus gives vitality and reciprocity to conditions from which, without such corrective, we would withdraw at any cost” (Simmel, 1955, p. 19).

These effects of conflict translate into innovation and transformation by awakening actors from cognitive and behavioral inertia. Psychological research shows that groups that experience dissent demonstrate greater information-processing intensity at the individual level and greater discussion intensity at the group level (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008, p. 156). Coser, challenging Parsons’ structural-functionalism, wrote that “conflict… prevents the ossification of the social system by exerting pressure for innovation and creativity,” and that social systems are “in need of conflict if only to renew [their] energies and revitalize [their] creative forces” (Coser, 1957, p. 197). Dewey called conflict the “sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity” (1930, p. 300).

Unintended consequences

Unintended consequences play an important role in the dialectical process of transformation (Kaufmann, 1965; Schneider, 1971). Unintended consequences arise when dominant actors promoting the affirmation undermine themselves by arousing the negation, and then again when mobilization of the negation has the unintended consequence of breeding counter-resistance by the affirmation. In their study of a biotechnology strategic alliance, de Rond and Bouchikhi (2004) document an instance of an affirmation giving rise to its own negation; they find that cooperation among firms reinvigorated competition among them, leading to the collapse of the alliance. As noted, the dialectical perspective also depicts transformation as an unintended consequence of the conflict between affirmation and negation.

Anticipating complexity theory and behavioral decision-making theory, Merton (1936) attributed unintended consequences in part to the cognitive limitations and biases of managers, which render managers unable to fully anticipate future conditions and the consequences of their actions. Further, Merton recognized that actors sometimes are more concerned with the short-term impacts of their actions than the long-term impacts, and make decisions based on values commitments without due regard to consequences. Merton also tied unintended consequences to the complexity of the situations in which these managers act. Because organizational contradictions are embedded in complex systems of related contradictions within and across levels of analysis, efforts to manage them can bring in complicating issues and actors which were seemingly distant or unforeseen.

Summary: Comparing paradox and dialectical perspectives

Table 1 presented above summarizes the foregoing discussion by comparing the paradox and dialectical perspectives.

Theoretical focus and characterization of contradictions. Table 1 shows that the dialectical and paradox perspectives share the premise that organizational actors make sense of their realities in terms of logical and socially constructed contradictions which are interdependent and presuppose each other for their very existence and meanings. The two perspectives provide very different lenses for understanding this phenomenon, however.

The paradox perspective provides a prescriptive, managerial lens which focuses on understanding the cognitions, practices, and organizational arrangements which managers individually and collectively employ to manage but not resolve the contradictions which they confront. These contradictions arise for managers because of the functional interdependence of the contradictory elements. In contrast, the dialectical perspective takes a descriptive approach which situates organizational contradictions within society’s institutional orders and webs of related contradictions. From this perspective, any particular organizational contradiction not only involves different elements within the organization but also exposes institutional, societal, and even world-level contradictions. Contradictions become salient as a consequence of the concentration of power behind one element of the contradiction. Proponents of the subordinate element of the contradiction come to recognize that their interests are not served.

Sensemaking. Paradox researchers have described how managers, although they tend to view contradictory elements as irreconcilable, accept the co-presence of these elements and seek ways to cope with the tension between them and simultaneously accomplish both. The dialectical perspective also starts from the premise that actors are partisans who promote one element at the expense of the other. Yet whereas the paradox perspective depicts actors as accepting the coexistence of contradictory elements and seeking synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays these actors as opposing each other and engaging in conflict. The dialectical perspective explains that actors tend to maintain this adversarial view of contradictory elements because they are deeply embedded in particular institutions and histories.

Agency. Paradox scholars portray actors as responding to contradiction by employing synergy to establish practices and arrangements which are advantageous to both contradictory elements. This approach may be read as a teleological, boundedly rational approach to making complex decisions that simultaneously satisfy opposing objectives. Strategies such as coping with (Vlaar, Van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2007) and working through paradox (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) evoke decision-making models which emphasize that conditions of complexity and rapid change necessitate iterative, incremental approaches to decision making (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Théorêt, 1976). In contrast, the dialectical perspective is concerned with the political activities that actors take to maintain and change those conditions. According to the dialectical perspective, partisan actors seek to defeat proponents of contradictory elements rather than accepting coexistence with them.

Outcomes. The paradox perspective sees conflict as contributing to “vicious cycles” which diminish organizational effectiveness, and it prescribes the ongoing reproduction of dynamic tension between opposites through differentiation and synergy. In contrast, the dialectical perspective views ongoing dynamic equilibrium as impossible, and it views conflict as inevitably producing transformation. And whereas the paradox perspective says little about the unintended consequences of actions, the dialectical perspective portrays unintended consequences of agency as having a major role in the production of transformation.

An Integrated Typology and Process Model of Managing Contradictions

We now present a descriptive typology and process model for managing contradictions that integrate key elements of the paradox and dialectical perspectives. The typology is provided in Figure 1. The integrated process model is described in the fourth column of Table 1 and represented in Figure 2.

Figure 1.

Approaches to Managing Contradiction.

Figure 2.

Process Model of Managing Contradictions.

In integrating the paradox and dialectical perspectives, we are guided by the premise that the two perspectives do not describe distinct processes, but rather that each recognizes one aspect of contradictions and the processes by which they play out, while missing the other aspect. We trace this both/and viewpoint that paradox and dialectical processes are interdependent elements of a larger process to leading thinkers in sociology such as Simmel (1955), Dewey (1930), and Cooley, who observed that “conflict and co-operation are not separable things, but phases of one process which always involves something of both” (Cooley, 1918, p. 39).

Typology

To motivate our integration, we present a typology of approaches to managing contradiction that incorporates elements of both perspectives (see Figure 1). The typology identifies two factors which influence actors’ approaches to managing contradictions: actors’ sensemaking approaches (the vertical axis) and the distribution of systemic power (the horizontal axis). The paradox perspective traditionally links both/and acceptance of opposing elements of a contradiction to synergy (quadrant 1 of Figure 1), while the dialectical perspective links adversarial resistance to mobilization and conflict (quadrant 4). Decoupling sensemaking from action and treating them as independent enables us to identify two further strategies for managing contradiction, assimilation (quadrant 2) and mutual adjustment (quadrant 3), which link dialectical and paradox models yet have been largely overlooked by the dialectical and paradox perspectives. We now discuss how the underlying dimensions of the typology give rise to its quadrants.

Sensemaking approach. As discussed above, the paradox perspective depicts actors as making sense of contradictions through both/and acceptance, while the dialectical perspective portrays them as employing either/or resistance. By sensemaking approach, we refer to the processes by which organizations enact and interpret their environments (Weick, 1995). Weick notes that sensemaking by actors within organizations is shaped by intersubjective communication with other actors; control mechanisms such as roles, routines, and standard operating procedures; and culturally accepted meanings. As we have noted above, these meanings are drawn from the social and institutional contexts in which organizations and actors are embedded.

Distribution of systemic power. Following dialectical theory, we see actors as embedded in and responsive to political conditions. Specifically, we link actors’ approaches to managing contradiction to the distribution of systemic power between contradictory elements. Systemic power refers to institutionalized power that operates automatically through rules and routines which are seemingly independent of the interests of particular actors yet advantage some actors over others (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Jepperson, 1991; Lawrence, 2008; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). The mimetic, normative, and coercive institutional mechanisms identified by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) are all forms of systemic power, in that they “regulate … behavior … through social and culture systems rather than through enforcement by a self-interested actor” (Lawrence, 2008, pp. 175–6). Systemic power may be contrasted with “episodic power,” which Lawrence defines as “relatively discrete, strategic acts of mobilization” (2008, p. 174). Episodic power is the ability to use political tactics to influence other actors.

We propose that actors take different actions to manage contradictions when the distribution of systemic power is stable and symmetrical as opposed to when it is unstable and/or asymmetrical. Under stable and symmetrical systemic power relations, proponents of both elements accept the persistent coexistence of opposite elements because they have determined that conflict will be fruitless. Therefore they conclude that coordinating through synergy (quadrant 1) or mutual adjustment (quadrant 3) with the other party is the most effective means of proceeding. In contrast, when the balance of systemic power between the two elements is either unstable or asymmetrical (or both), the proponents of one or both of the contradictory elements are motivated to try to change the balance of power rather than accept it and work within it. Following dialectics, we expect that when systemic power is distributed asymmetrically, proponents of the subordinate element will recognize that their interests are not being served, and will mobilize and use political tactics to try to make institutional change (quadrant 4). At the same time, under such conditions proponents of the dominant element will be motivated to negate the subordinate element and maintain their position (assimilation, quadrant 2).

We see numerous factors influencing the stability of power relations, i.e., actors’ expectations about whether the distribution of systemic power can be maintained or changed. We expect that one key factor would be the relative degree of episodic power that proponents of each element perceives itself to possess, with each side calculating whether it has the skills and resources needed to achieve institutional changes that favor it. Another factor is the degree of resource dependence. To the extent that the proponents of the contradictory elements each need the other to accomplish their goals, the more likely they will be to coordinate their efforts rather than trying to engage in conflict (Van de Ven & Walker, 1984). Other factors could include the degree of complexity and pace of change. Highly complex, rapidly changing circumstances will tend to provoke acceptance of existing power relations because they increase decision-making uncertainty, increase the possibility of significant unintended consequences, and lead managers to conclude that gains from conflict may be ephemeral (Duncan, 1972; Tung, 1979). Finally, we expect that the distribution of systemic power will be more stable under munificent conditions, because proponents of contradictory elements need not battle for resources to achieve their goals under such conditions (Pondy, 1968.)

As discussed above, the synergy and conflict strategies (quadrants 1 and 4 in Figure 2) have been the main approaches taken by paradox and dialectical scholars for managing contradiction. Figure 2 illustrates our argument that each of these strategies applies in particular combinations of sensemaking approach and distribution of systemic power. Moreover, our integrated model includes two further approaches to managing contradiction—assimilation and mutual adjustment—which combine paradoxical and dialectical elements. Because these have not been discussed above we address them now.

Assimilation (quadrant 2 of Figure 2 ). We propose that when power is distributed relatively asymmetrically, the acceptance of the coexistence of contradictory elements is expressed not through synergy, as the paradox perspective posits, but rather through assimilation. Assimilation occurs when practices and arrangements which have been associated with a subordinate element come to be incorporated into the dominant element (Thornton et al., 2012). Proponents of the dominant element use assimilation when they accept aspects of the contradictory element as legitimate and useful, yet also seek to maintain their dominant position. To do so they adopt these aspects by justifying them in the logic of the dominant element. Thus, under assimilation, the logic of the subordinate element is not expressed, and the tension between the contradictory elements is not engaged. We distinguish assimilation from cooptation (Selznick, 1948), which is the tactic of absorbing threatening actors into the organization’s leadership. Cooptation is a form of ceremonial rather than substantive adoption of subordinate elements.

While to our knowledge the strategy of assimilation is not well represented in dialectics and paradox research, it is increasingly gaining purchase in institutional theory. Murray (2010) shows how patenting practices, which reflect a market logic, were assimilated into the professional logic of academia rather than replacing it. Arjaliès (2010) demonstrates that dominant actors in France’s investment field assimilated the practice of socially responsible investing into the dominant market logic. York, Hargrave, and Pacheco (2015) show that although wind energy initially was promoted in Colorado because of its environmental benefits, dominant actors in the state justified their initial adoption of wind solely on economic grounds.

Mutual adjustment (quadrant 3 of Figure 2 ). We propose that under conditions of a stable and symmetrical distribution of systemic power, contradictory elements are not always coordinated through synergy, as the paradox perspective proposes, because actors may make sense of the relationship of the elements as adversarial. Although proponents of the two elements may recognize their interdependence and accept their coexistence, they may not see each other as legitimate, or may not view forms of synergy such as cooperation and collaboration as useful to their own goal achievement. Therefore, rather than engaging in synergy, they may manage their interdependence through mutual adjustment (Lindblom, 1963). Lindblom notes that mutual adjustment involves a range of negotiating tactics including bargaining, partisan discussion, compensation, and reciprocity, which can produce mutually satisfactory but not necessarily mutually advantageous outcomes. He also writes that partisan mutual adjustment includes means which do not involve direct coordination such as accommodation, i.e., not interfering with the actions of proponents of the contradictory element.

In sum, recognizing that dialectical conflict and paradoxical management occur under particular political conditions opens up the possibility that actors employ other strategies under different conditions. We have posited that either/or resistance sensemaking is expressed not through conflict but rather through mutual adjustment under a symmetrical distribution of systemic power, and that both/and acceptance is expressed not as synergy but rather as assimilation under an asymmetrical distribution of power. Thus our typology incorporates both the ideal-type paradox and dialectical perspectives discussed above and two more possibilities which combine these perspectives.

Process model

We now present our typology in the form of a process model which depicts the sequences of events by which contradictions in organizations play out over time. By “process” we mean the sequence of events which includes the emergence of the contradiction as salient, sensemaking of the contradiction by the actors experiencing it, actions these actors take to address the contradiction, and the outcomes of those actions. By “outcomes” we refer not to the influence of managerial actions on the achievement of organizational goals, but rather to the influence of actions on the contradiction itself, and specifically whether the tension between contradictory elements is reproduced, revised, or transformed.

Our integrated process model starts from the assumption that when contradictions first become salient due to functional interdependence, resource scarcity, and rapid change, boundedly rational actors will respond by promoting the element they favor and seeking to overcome the contradictory element. This assumption follows directly from the paradox perspective, which depicts managers confronting newly salient contradictions as struggling to overcome their own cognitive limitations, partial viewpoints, anxiety, and defensiveness. It is also consistent with the dialectical perspective, which describes the proponents of both the affirmation and negation as taking partisan perspectives due to their embeddedness in particular institutional orders.

In the sensemaking stage of the model, actors either accept or resist the persistent coexistence of contradictory elements. They do so based upon their organizational, social, institutional, and historical embedding, as described by the dialectical perspective. Actors then take actions to manage the contradiction based upon both their sensemaking approaches and the expected distribution of systemic power, as discussed above. Each of the four management approaches—synergy, assimilation, adjustment, and conflict—links to a particular combination of sensemaking approach and expected power distribution.

The feedback loops in Figure 2 illustrate that synergy, assimilation, and adjustment strategies preserve the salient tension between contradictory elements. This is consistent with the paradox perspective. The figure also depicts conflict as transforming this tension and setting the stage for a new dialectical process, as posited by the dialectical perspective.

The model also accounts for the unintended consequences of action. First, it incorporates the dialectical sequence of affirmation, negation, and transformation in which unintended consequences play a central role, as discussed above. In addition the model captures unintended consequences by allowing for the possibility that the management strategies identified do not necessarily reproduce themselves, and could instead lead to the use of other strategies. In other words, the use of a particular management approach can trigger changes in actors’ sensemaking approaches or the expected distribution of systemic power, thereby leading to a change in management approach.

For example, in one possible sequence, efforts at synergy could undermine themselves and lead to adjustment or conflict by revealing historical institutional antagonisms and engendering defensiveness, adversarial mindsets, and “disillusionment about cooperation” (Lourenço & Glidewell, 1975, p. 503). In another sequence, mobilization and conflict could lead to a symmetrical distribution of power and the use of a synergy approach. In this sequence, proponents of the subordinate contradictory element would first build the power needed to challenge the dominant element, and then the two sides would begin to work together rather than continuing to engage in conflict. They would do so because they had concluded that they could not defeat the other, and/or because superordinate coordinating mechanisms and practices had been imposed.

Finally, another path that involves unintended consequences is one in which synergy produces transformation. Here, the acceptance of paradox unleashes creative efforts which produce breakthrough ideas, practices, and arrangements which enfold the contradictory elements. This is the sequence which paradox researchers have long described (Cameron & Quinn, 1988). We expect that such transformations are more likely to be produced when acceptance and synergy follow from conflict, i.e., when proponents of both elements conclude that they cannot defeat the other side and then are able to harness the energy and ideas that conflict has produced and channel them into mechanisms such as dialogs and working groups.

A key contingency which influences the outcomes of the four management approaches is the managerial and political skill of the actors involved. The outcomes of conflict will depend upon the ability of proponents of a subordinate element to employ collective action tactics such as framing and resource mobilization to challenge and overcome dominant actors (Benford & Snow, 2000; McAdam et al., 1996; McCarthy & Zald, 1973; Snow & Benford, 1988), as well as the ability of these dominant actors to employ assimilation or resist the negation through coercion and accommodation (Gramsci, 1971). As our earlier literature review reveals, the outcomes of synergy will depend on managerial skills such as the ability to overcome defensiveness, an openness to new ideas, creativity, and the ability to build working relationships with proponents of contradictory elements. Superordinate managers can play a key role in establishing and enforcing coordinating mechanisms.

Discussion and Conclusion

The question of how organizations manage tensions between contradictory elements is becoming more important as such tensions become increasingly salient due to globalization, rapid change, and more intense competition. Both the paradox and dialectical perspectives provide insights into how organizational actors manage these tensions. We have presented an integrated model which incorporates dialectical sequences of events, paradoxical sequences of events, and combinations of them. By drawing upon the dialectical perspective’s emphasis on politics and power, we are able to establish political boundary conditions for dialectical and paradox models, and also identify two approaches to managing contradictions—assimilation and adjustment—which are not captured by the ideal-type models.

Our integrated model provides a more comprehensive picture of the management of contradiction than either the dialectical or paradox perspective does alone. It (1) focuses on the management of salient organizational contradictions while setting them in broader political, institutional, and social context; (2) depicts managers both accepting and resisting contradictory elements; (3) identifies two approaches to managing contradiction—assimilation and mutual adjustment—which combine dialectical and paradox elements, and which have not been identified in the dialectics and paradox literatures; and (4) explains both the reproduction of tensions between contradictory elements, and the transformation of these tensions.

Implications for paradox research. Our integrated model has important implications for paradox researchers. First, it suggests that paradox research has been undertaken against the backdrop of a stable, symmetrical distribution of power. This boundary condition rarely has been addressed by paradox researchers (but see Clegg et al., 2002 for an exception). In this way the integrated model suggests that the paradoxical “virtuous cycle” of acceptance and adjustment is not feasible when only one element of the contradiction enjoys power, or when power is shared but some actors believe that they can achieve dominance through conflict. Hence the integrated model suggests that paradox researchers give more attention to political conditions.

Second, because it portrays the contradictions experienced in organizations as socially embedded and complex, the integrated model explains why the contradictions that managers face seem intractable, and the actors involved intransigent. Indeed, the very idea of managing contradictions seems to be impracticable when one recognizes that any particular organizational contradiction is tangled in a knot of organizational, institutional, societal, and even world-historical contradictions. By drawing upon the dialectical perspective to take this into account, the integrated model explains why managers often can only cope with rather than try to resolve organizational contradictions. Hence the model suggests that paradox researchers give greater attention to the broader institutional and social contexts in which organizational contradictions are embedded, and how these conditions influence management practices.

Third, the integrated model extends the paradox perspective by suggesting that conflict can be a generative force. As we have discussed, conflict can awaken cognitive and emotional energy and stimulate creativity, leading to innovative approaches to managing contradictions that would not have emerged in its absence. We have proposed that acceptance and synergy may be more productive when preceded and fueled by the energy of conflict. Conflict can play an instrumental role in the management of contradictions, and does not always precipitate destructive “vicious cycles.” In short, we hope that paradox researchers will accept the contradiction between acceptance and resistance, and give attention to the practices which managers employ to stimulate and productively use conflict as a source of innovation. Such research would give attention to the ways in which subordinate actors challenge authority.

Finally, our integrated model suggests the possibility that organizational contradictions can be transformed and not merely lived with. By bringing transformation back in, we return paradox scholarship to its roots. We note that Quinn and Cameron’s seminal 1988 book was titled Paradox and Transformation, and we hope that our integrated model stimulates renewed attention to transformation among paradox researchers. Recognition of the instrumentality of “coping with” and “working through” paradox need not crowd out the possibility that acceptance and synergy can lead to the production of all-new practices and arrangements.

Implications for dialectics research. The integrated model also carries important implications for dialectics researchers. These spring from the model’s managerial character, taken from the paradox perspective. The model suggests that managers are not helpless in the face of complex historical forces but rather are agents who seek to solve the practical problems they face. Managers are responsible to their organizations’ stakeholders for accomplishing organizational missions, goals, and strategies, and executing this responsibility often requires dealing with the unintended effects of actions and trying to make seemingly intractable problems into “workable certainties” (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). And although it may be difficult because they have their own subjective perspectives that link back to particular institutional orders and histories, managers can attempt to develop paradoxical thinking to understand and even sympathize with contradictory elements, wrestle with the creative tension between them, and establish organizational arrangements and processes which enable ongoing problem-solving.

The integrated model also suggests that acceptance and synergy may in some cases be mechanisms of transformation. As described above, this would occur when actors who have been locked in conflict conclude that they cannot defeat each other and decide to channel the energy and ideas produced by conflict into productive working relationships. This suggests the possibility that transformation, such as that described by Lourenço and Glidewell and highlighted at the start of this paper, may be produced not from conflict alone but instead through a process in which conflict gives way to synergy. In short, researchers need to be alert to the possible role of acceptance and synergy in dialectical processes.

In sum, our integrated model of managing contradictions suggests a broadened research agenda for all scholars of managing contradictions, whether they situate themselves as dialectics or paradox researchers (or both). This agenda would give attention to conflict, power, politics, institutions, and unintended consequences, as well as managerial strategies for making sense of and acting on contradictions in the face of these forces. Such research could take as its starting point Simmel’s observation that “in every state of peace the conditions of future conflict, and in every conflict the conditions of future peace, are formed” (Simmel, 1955, p. 109).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the editors of the special issue and particularly Dr Marianne Lewis for their expert guidance. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of our manuscript for the constructive advice. Finally, we greatly appreciate useful comments on earlier versions of this paper from Drs Robin Holt, Rick Delbridge, Tim Edwards, Scott Johnson, and Eero Vaara.

Author Note

Timothy J Hargrave completed his contribution to this paper while at Simon Fraser University, Canada and Seattle University, USA.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

Author biographies

Timothy J. Hargrave is Assistant Professor at Central Washington University.

Andrew H. Van de Ven is the Vernon H. Heath Professor of Organizational Innovation and Change in the Carlson School of Management of the University of Minnesota.

References

Andriopoulos

Lewis

M. W.

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

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Arjaliès

(2010). A social movement perspective on finance: How socially responsible investment mattered. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 57–78.

Barnard

C. I.

(1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Battilana

D’Aunno

(2009). The paradox of embedded agency: Straw man argument or central epistemological issue? In Lawrence

Leca

Suddaby

(Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organization (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Benford

R. D.

Snow

D. A.

2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.

Benson

J. K.

(1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1–21.

Berger

P. L.

Luckmann

(1967). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

Besharov

M. L.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364–381.

10.

Bledow

Frese

Anderson

Erez

Farr

(2009). A dialectical perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–337.

11.

Burns

Stalker

G. M.

(1961). Management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

12.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

13.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

DeGraff

Thakor

A. V.

(2006). Competing values leadership: Creating value in organizations. Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar.

14.

Clegg

(2002). General introduction. In Clegg

(Ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 1–8). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

15.

Clegg

S. R.

Cunha

J. V.

Cunha

M. P.

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

16.

Cooley

C. H.

(1918). Social process. New York: Scribner & Sons.

17.

Coser

L. A.

(1957). Social conflict and the theory of social change. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 197–207.

18.

Csikzentmihalyi

(1976). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Gelfand

M. J.

(2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. In De Dreu

C. K. W.

Gelfand

M. J.

(Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 3–54). New York, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

De Rond

Bouchikhi

(2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15, 56–69.

21.

Dewey

(1930). Human nature and conduct. New York: The Modern Library.

22.

DiMaggio

P. J.

Powell

W. W.

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

23.

Donaldson

Preston

L. E.

(1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

24.

Duncan

R. B.

(1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313–327.

25.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

Wescott

B. J.

(1988). Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence. The case of just-in-time manufacturing. In Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 169–193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

26.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Putnam

(2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26.

27.

Farjoun

(2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35, 202–225.

28.

Fayol

(1949) [1916]. General and industrial management. London: Pitman.

29.

Follett

M. P.

(1941). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. Metcalf

Urwick

(Eds.). London: Pitman.

30.

Friedland

Alford

R. R.

(1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Powell

W. W.

Dimaggio

P. J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Galbraith

J. R.

(1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

32.

Gamson

W. A.

(1995). Constructing social protest. In Johnston

Klandermans

(Eds.), Social movements and culture (pp. 85–106). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

33.

Garud

Hardy

Maguire

(2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28, 957–969.

34.

Garud

Jain

Tuertscher

(2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29, 351–371.

35.

Gramsci

(1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.

36.

Hargrave

T. J.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2006). A collective action model of institutional change. Academy of Management Review, 31, 864–888.

37.

Hughes

Brecht

(1975). Vicious circles and infinity. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

38.

Jarzabkowski

Lê

Van de Ven

A. H.

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

39.

Jepperson

R. L.

(1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In Powell

W. W.

DiMaggio

P.J.

(Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Jing

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2014). A yin-yang model of organizational change: The case of Chengdu Bus group. Management and Organization Review, 10, 29–54.

41.

Johnston

Selsky

J. W.

(2005). Duality and paradox: Trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice. Organization Studies, 27, 183–205.

42.

Kaufmann

(1965). Hegel. New York: Doubleday.

43.

Lado

A. A.

Boyd

N. G.

Hanlon

(1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22, 110–141.

44.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

J. W.

(1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.

45.

Lawrence

T. B.

(2008). Power, institutions and organizations. In Greenwood

Oliver

Sahlin-Andersson

Suddaby

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 170–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

46.

Lewin

(1943). Defining the “field at a given time.” Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.

47.

Lewis

M. W.

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

48.

Lewis

M. W.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 127–149.

49.

P. P.

(2011). Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric implications of Yin-Yang balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 849–872.

50.

Lindblom

C. E.

(1963). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York: Free Press.

51.

Lourenço

S. V.

Glidewell

J. C.

(1975). A dialectical analysis of organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 489–508.

52.

Lüscher

L. S.

Lewis

M. W.

(2008). Organizational change and managerial sense making: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 221–240.

53.

March

J. G.

(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

54.

Marx

(1979) [1859]. Preface, in A contribution to the critique of political economy. International Publishers.

55.

Mason

R. O.

(1996). Commentary on varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 293–299.

56.

McAdam

McCarthy

J. D.

Zald

M. N.

(1996). Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes—toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In McAdam

McCarthy

J. D.

Zald

M. N.

(Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures and cultural framing (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.

57.

McCarthy

J. D.

Zald

M. N.

(1973). The trend of social movements in America: Professionalization and resource mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corporation.

58.

Merton

R. K.

(1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1, 894–904.

59.

Meyer

J. R.

Rowan

(1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

60.

Mintzberg

Raisinghani

Théorêt

(1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246–275.

61.

Murray

(2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 341–388.

62.

Nielsen

R. P.

(1996). Varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 276–292.

63.

Park

(1931). Personality and cultural conflict. Publications of the American Sociological Society, 25, 95–110.

64.

Peng

Nisbett

R. E.

(1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741–754.

65.

Pondy

L. R.

(1968). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296–320.

66.

Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.

67.

Pratt

M. G.

Foreman

P. O.

(2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25, 18–42.

68.

Putnam

L. L.

(2015). Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the discourse-materiality relationship. Journal of Management Studies, 52, 706–716.

69.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2014). Revisiting “Organizations as discursive constructions”: Ten years later. Communication Theory, 25, 375–392.

70.

Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(1988). Paradox and transformation: A framework for viewing organization and management. In Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 289–308). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

71.

Ring

P. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498.

72.

Rothenberg

(1979). The emerging goddess. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

73.

Salmon

W. C.

(2001). Zeno’s paradoxes, second edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.

74.

Sartre

J-P.

(1993). Essays in existentialism. New York: Citadel Press.

75.

Schneider

(1971). Dialectic in sociology. American Sociological Review, 36, 667–678.

76.

Selznick

(1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 25–35.

77.

Seo

Creed

W. E. D.

(2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.

78.

Simmel

(1955) [1907]. Conflict. New York: Free Press.

79.

Smith

K. K.

Berg

D. N.

(1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

80.

Smith

W. K.

Gonin

Besharov

(2013). Managing social-business tensions. A review and research agenda for social enterprises. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 407–442.

81.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

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

82.

Smith

W. K.

Tushman

M. L.

(2005). Managing strategic contradictions. A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.

83.

Snow

D. A.

Benford

R. D.

(1988). Ideology, frame resonance and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218.

84.

Taylor

F. W.

(1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

85.

Thompson

J. D.

(1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

86.

Thornton

P. H.

Ocasio

Lounsbury

(2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

87.

Tung

(1979). Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory study of their impact on organization structure. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 672–693.

88.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1983). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. (Book review.) Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 621–624.

89.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M.S.

(1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540.

90.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Walker

(1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 598–621.

91.

Vince

Broussine

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

92.

Vlaar

P. W. L

Van den Bosch

F. A. J.

Volberda

H. W.

(2007). Towards a dialectic perspective on formalization in interorganizational relationships: How alliance managers capitalize on the duality inherent in contracts, rules, and procedures. Organization Studies, 28, 437–466.

93.

Walker

Schlosser

Deephouse

D. L.

(2014). Organizational ingenuity and the paradox of embedded agency: The case of the embryonic Ontario solar energy industry. Organization Studies, 35, 613–634.

94.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

95.

Weick

K. E.

(1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9, 543–555.

96.

Weick

K. E.

(2004). Rethinking organizational design. In Boland

Jr. Collopy

(Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 36–53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

97.

Werner

C. M.

Baxter

L. A.

(1994). Temporal qualities of relationships: Organismic, transactional, and dialectical views. In Knapp

Miller

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, second edition (pp. 323–379). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

98.

Westenholz

(1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14, 37–58.

99.

York

Hargrave

Pacheco

(2015). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Forthcoming in Academy of Management Journal. Published online June 8, 2015.