From Vicious to Virtuous Paradox Dynamics: The Social-symbolic Work of Supporting Actors

Abstract

The dynamics of paradox can be vicious and virtuous. Facing competing yet interrelated demands, organizational actors may find themselves paralyzed by tensions, embroiled in a vicious cycle, or energized by and thriving amid the friction in a virtuous cycle. While studies offer insights into each type, little is known about how actors move from one to the other. Through an action research study at a multinational company, we investigate shifting paradox dynamics. Our model depicts how organizational actors transition from vicious to virtuous cycle, moving through a cycle break and a cycle reversal. Our collaborative methodology sheds light on how supporting actors can shape the social and symbolic dimensions influencing focal actors’ capacity to shift their patterned responses to paradoxical tensions. Supporting actors, positioned as insiders to the organization but outsiders to the paradox, enable this shift by breaking dysfunctional dynamics, facilitating new responses, and embedding virtuous dynamics in the organization.

Keywords

action research paradox social-symbolic work supporting actors vicious cycle virtuous cycle

Introduction

In our increasingly complex and interconnected world, organizational members continuously confront paradox—contradictory yet interrelated demands that persist over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Managers must display decisiveness yet welcome doubt (Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith, & Lewis, 2018). Creative workers are asked to fuel radical innovation, while astutely managing the bottom line (Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2011). Employees grapple with needing to attend to long-term goals, yet respond to the myriad short-term fires that blaze daily. Embracing such paradoxical demands may surface new, synergistic possibilities, fostering learning and building comfort with tensions to fuel a virtuous cycle (Rocha Rodrigues, Cunha, Rego, & Clegg, 2016). Yet, more often, individuals favor one side of the paradox over the other in an effort to leverage their strengths and gain a temporary sense of comfort. Neglecting the opposing demand, however, intensifies its pull while reinforcing the tendency for further, defensive responses in a vicious cycle (Schad, Lewis, Raisch & Smith, 2016; Tsoukas & Cunha, 2017).

Current understandings of vicious and virtuous cycles stem primarily from studies that explore them as stand-alone entities, either examining the paralyzing tendencies of the former (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003) or the empowering potential of the latter (Smith & Lewis, 2011). For example, some studies that explore vicious cycles suggest that “break[ing] free of [their] grip” requires external intervention that triggers learning (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003, p. 407). In contrast, studies that examine more virtuous dynamics find that actors need to “work through” paradox, grappling with underlying tensions to tap their positive potential (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) or adopting strategies that allow consistently inconsistent decision-making to value and iterate between opposing demands (Smith, 2014). Scarce studies, however, explore shifts from one cycle to the other (Huq, Reay, & Chreim, 2017).

To address this gap, we draw on action research conducted within a multinational company, investigating the question: How does a shift from vicious to virtuous cycle unfold? Even when organizational members are willing to embrace competing demands, the environment in which they work may prevent them from shifting paradox dynamics (Gilbert, Michaud, Bentein, Dubois, & Bédard, 2018). Our research surfaces the potentially central role of supporting actors, those who are insiders to the organization but outsiders to the paradox, in enabling this shift. Applying a social-symbolic work lens (Lawrence & Phillips, 2019), we unpack how supporting actors can alter contextual elements to help remove persistent obstacles that impede focal actors—those directly embroiled in tensions—from working through paradox.

Our results culminate in a grounded model of shifting paradox dynamics that unpacks the social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Our paper makes two, interrelated contributions to paradox literature. First, by highlighting a series of actions aimed at altering the social-symbolic context in which paradox dynamics occur, the model extends existing cognitive and behavioral explanations of how actors work through paradox. It shows that the broader system of shared meanings, relationships, and emotions may operate as a scaffolding that can embed defensive patterns of response or facilitate more generative ones. Second, our model shines light on how supporting actors, by virtue of their position, play a critical role in shifting paradox dynamics. These actors are invested in facilitating more generative responses to paradox, yet not directly entangled in the tenuous demands themselves. Together, our contributions suggest that the how and the who of shifting paradox dynamics are consequential and inextricably intertwined.

Paradox Dynamics

The dynamics of paradox are varied and consequential in organizations. As organizational actors grapple with paradox, their efforts may enable generative outcomes such as creativity and learning (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011), or accentuate the underlying tensions, perpetuate defensive responses, and paralyze decision-making (Cunha & Tsoukas, 2015; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003).

Dysfunctional paradox dynamics are conceptualized as a vicious cycle. Evocatively depicted as a downward spiral (Hambrick & D’Aveni, 1988), vicious cycles are typically associated with defensive responses whereby actors favor one of the poles, seeking to avoid responses that require addressing the tension and potentially changing their preferred course of action (Huq et al., 2017; Lewis, 2000). Such responses foster temporary comfort via a sense of consistency and control (Tsoukas & Cunha, 2017), but inhibit actors from “confronting the limits of current understandings and practices” (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003, p. 399). As one pole is repeatedly chosen over the other, the pull from the neglected pole eventually intensifies within intractable conflict (Schad et al., 2016).

In contrast, virtuous cycles denote self-correcting patterns of actions associated with acceptance of competing demands and search for synergistic approaches that value each pole and enable their interplay (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Scholars have investigated the cognitive and behavioral underpinnings of virtuous cycles, including paradoxical thinking to reframe tensions via both/and rather than either/or mindsets (e.g. Schad et al., 2016), strategies of integration and differentiation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), and external interventions that trigger learning (Sundaramurthy & Lewis 2003). Studies highlight positive outcomes that stem from virtuous cycles at different levels of analysis, including innovation, creativity (Miron-Spektor et al., 2011), ambidexterity (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), and sustainability and long-term performance (Smith, Lewis, & Tushman, 2011). These studies find that embracing competing, interwoven demands, while messy and challenging, produces “workable certainties” that enable learning (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008, p. 230).

Extant studies of paradox dynamics are primarily conceptual or focus on either virtuous or vicious cycles (e.g., Cunha & Tsoukas, 2015; Rocha Rodrigues et al., 2016; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003). Further, scholars increasingly stress that in micro, everyday interactions such dynamics may be quite complex and fluid (e.g., Abdallah, Denis, & Langley, 2011; Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017; Lê & Bednarek 2017). Virtuous or vicious cycles may not reflect paradox construction in the moment, yet such patterns do reflect configurations that become ingrained in organizations and in individuals’ habitual ways of thinking and responding (Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016). As such, calls continue for research to unpack these persistent, self-reinforcing patterns and how they change direction (Tsoukas & Cunha, 2017).

Working through paradox: A cognitive and behavioral effort to shift dynamics

To unpack how a shift in paradox dynamics might unfold, it is important to consider how actors change their existing views and actions regarding competing demands. Scholars term this a process of “working through” paradox (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Berg, 1987) as actors explore “conflicting feelings, practices, and perspectives in search of more encompassing understandings” of paradoxical tensions (Lewis & Dehler, 2000, p. 710). Studies of this process (e.g., Huq et al., 2017; Smith, 2014) have typically adopted a cognitive or behavioral view. They stress that individual actors manage the tug-of-war of competing demands either via sensemaking (e.g., Lewis & Dehler, 2000) or via consistently inconsistent strategic action (e.g., Smith, 2014). For example, in Lüscher and Lewis’ (2008) study of organizational change at Lego, the mantra that spurred managers to work through paradoxes was: “The problem is not the problem; the problem is the way you think about the problem” (Watzlawick et al., 1974, cited in Lüscher & Lewis, 2008, p. 227). In this case, working through paradoxes involved a cognitive process of interventive questioning aimed at helping shift the managers’ approach to underlying tensions. In Lewis, Andriopoulos, and Smith’s (2014, p. 73) study of paradox and strategic agility, managers implemented practices geared towards creative, both/and solutions that enabled “fast-paced, adaptable decision making.” Working through paradox, in that instance, involved behavioral mechanisms, such as valuing paradoxes as conducive to high performance, identifying and raising tensions, consistently communicating a both/and vision, and focusing on both sides of a paradox separately.

While insightful, cognitive and behavioral explanations of working through paradox have a limited reach, especially when trying to unpack situated complexities—the social and institutional embeddedness of tensions that may challenge shifts from vicious to virtuous cycles. In a world in which paradoxes are “a key aspect of the organization milieu” (Lewis & Dehler, 2000, p. 709), competing demands are deeply intertwined in a social context, “knotted” with other tensions (Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi, 2017, p. 463), and producing “spill over[s]” (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013, p. 246) across levels of analysis. Scholars have noted such complexity, calling for paradox studies to investigate how contextual conditions may influence management practices. For example, Knight and Paroutis (2017) examine the interpretive context of a strategic paradox to highlight the role that instrumental, relational, and temporal dimensions may play in making competing demands salient. Cunha and Clegg (2018, p. 27) draw attention to the historical context, stressing that paradoxes “occur not over blank organizational pages” but “over the institutional remains of past paradoxes.” And Hargrave and Van de Ven (2017) suggest that paradox research examine the institutional and social contexts in which tensions unfold and their influence on actors’ responses. Yet despite such calls, little is known about the role of context in shifting paradox dynamics.

A social-symbolic work lens on shifting paradox dynamics

Research on social-symbolic work offers a potentially insightful lens to examine shifting paradox dynamics. Social-symbolic work refers to “forms of work that involve individuals and organizations purposefully and strategically expending effort to affect their social-symbolic context” (Phillips & Lawrence, 2012, p. 223). It is part of a broader “turn to work” in organizational studies fostered by Barley and Kunda’s (2001, p. 87) call for “situated studies of work” that “produce more concrete images of organizing.” The social-symbolic context denotes aspects of organizational life produced and reproduced through social relations and imbued with meaning (Hochschild, 1979). Examples include values that guide employees’ actions (Gehman, Treviño, & Garud, 2013), shared beliefs about what areas are strategic (Gond, Cabantous, & Krikorian, 2018), and emotions experienced during a period of institutional change (Moisander, Hirsto, & Fahy, 2016).

In our work, this lens helped us consider patterned responses to tensions as deeply intertwined with factors that may affect whether a shift is even deemed possible, e.g., the social relations of focal actors, the shared beliefs surrounding competing demands, and the sanctioned emotions towards tensions. A social-symbolic work lens directs attention to the role of social processes and shared meanings in the construction of reality (Lawrence & Phillips, 2019; Mead, 1934). All in all, it enables exploration into how focal actors shift from vicious to virtuous cycle and the role that the social-symbolic context plays in this process.

Methods

We conducted action research at the European subsidiary of TradeCo,¹ a multinational energy company. The genesis of our study was an engagement issue among TradeCo’s plant purchasing managers (PPMs): a 2014 survey revealed that the PPMs’ engagement rate in the European region had dropped below the target for the global purchasing unit. This result was attributed to a lack of competencies, spurring the European HR director to ask one of the authors (hereafter, the field researcher) to conduct a six-month, full-time HR project aimed at creating a skill development program for PPMs.

Upon entering the field, the field researcher and the team of HR professionals identified that PPMs’ low engagement rate was related to their feeling constantly overwhelmed by competing demands. We recommended that our action research examine more broadly how HR managers could support front-line employees in navigating these tensions—which we came to label as short-term and long-term paradoxes.

The PPMs expressed feeling caught in a tug-of-war between short-term and long-term demands that were conflicting, yet interwoven and nested across levels. For instance, when PPMs assumed their role, tensions took the form of a performing-learning paradox (Smith & Lewis, 2011). They felt expected to fulfill 100% of their immediate responsibilities, but also to take time to engage in training and build knowledge to become experts at their job. When making work-allocation decisions, short-term/long-term tensions took the form of an operational-strategic paradox (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). PPMs felt pressure to resolve plant-related emergencies on a daily basis, while experiencing pressure from the purchasing division to lead strategic projects. Tensions also surfaced at a personal level during career management decisions. PPMs felt the need to engage in short-term productivity actions to boost their own key performance indicators (KPIs), but also to engage in long-term planning that demonstrated leadership in improving the plant’s P&L.

PPMs understood that these conflicting demands were interrelated: being a “good” PPM required excelling in both. Those who focused excessively on resolving emergencies or one-shot productivity boost actions did not get promoted, nor did those few who focused heavily on strategic purchasing or planning. In addition, managing daily plant problems required a holistic understanding of purchasing and its strategic direction, while strategic planning and supplier partnership development required operational expertise. However, PPMs often favored the short term at the expense of the long term, creating the sense of a never-ending crisis mode that fueled vicious dynamics.

Action research is a methodology based on mutual learning (Greenwood & Levin, 2007), whereby knowledge creation arises from practice and requires collaborative work between researchers and practitioners: “Unlike conventional social science, its purpose is not primarily or solely to understand social arrangements, but also to effect desired change as a path to generating knowledge and empowering stakeholders” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010, p. 93). The methodology’s dual focus on generating data for scientific knowledge production and on advocating for change was particularly well suited for this study. Our purpose was two-fold: to theorize the process of shifting paradox dynamics, while surfacing strategies that could relieve TradeCo’s PPMs from their negative, reinforcing cycle.

Research process

Following general principles of action research (e.g., Herr & Anderson, 2015; Greenwood & Levin, 2007) and of paradox studies that use this method (Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), our research process consisted of three phases: groundwork, planned action, and theorizing. We describe these below, detailing their timing and objectives. Table 1 provides an overview of key data sources. We were not allowed to record most of the interviews and meetings described below, but took extensive notes in a field journal.

Table 1.

Data Collected.

Data sources	Data collected	Description
56 interviews	* 4 interviews with PPMs during groundwork* 11 interviews with PPMs, 11 with managers and 15 with other organizational members during planned action* 6 interviews with PPMs, 4 with HR professionals, 3 with managers, and 2 with Purchasing VPs during the post-intervention phase	Interviews lasted between 20 and 90 minutes. Most interviews were not recorded for privacy reasons, but notes were taken. On average, the field researcher produced four pages of notes per interview.
105 journal entries	* 15 journal entries for 15 meetings as observer (plant management committee; seminars with PPMs, managers and director; purchasing strategic meetings; HR strategic meetings)* 50 journal entries for 50 meetings as an animator (HR Steering committee; HR Management committee; project team meetings; HR team meetings)* 30 additional journal entries to recount interactions and thoughts* 10 journal entries specific to team dialogues on theories	Meetings lasted one hour on average. Journal entries vary deeply in length depending on whether they capture a thought from the field researcher, a meeting with other HR professionals or an extended dialogue with the research team. They range from one page to 12 pages.
40 archival materials	* over 40 documents including job descriptions, reports, Power Point presentations, content of e-learning trainings, webinars, web pages	Document length ranges from one page to 14 pages.

Groundwork

This phase started in January 2015, soon after the disclosure of the PPMs’ engagement survey results. We first formed a group of champions who supported the initiative and were sensitized to the PPMs’ experience, including several senior executives with expertise in purchasing or HR. We then listed potential data that we could collect during the project, such as semi-structured interviews, archival materials, and field observations (Herr & Anderson, 2015). This phase and, in particular, the first round of interviews with PPMs, managers, and other key organizational members allowed us to develop an initial understanding of the setting. In this phase, the field researcher became part of the HR professionals’ team. HR professionals knew that the researcher was both working with them and using this work as action research.

Planned action

This phase occurred between February and June 2015. We conducted multiple work sessions, attended meetings, and conducted additional interviews. One-to-one sessions with PPMs were particularly conducive to surfacing contextual elements that sustained the vicious dynamics. Group sessions with PPMs, purchasing managers, and HR professionals enabled collaborative work to rethink new responses in the face of competing demands. A number of presentations to PPMs, the purchasing department, and other stakeholders were conducted to communicate the results of our planned action.

Theorizing

Theorizing occurred in two phases. The initial phase took place while we were in the field. Our efforts centered on writing an evolving, rich case story to capture the tensions experienced by PPMs and the purposeful actions of HR professionals to help PPMs manage competing demands (Lewis, 2000). We also engaged in data coding, formulating descriptive codes and allowing for some theoretical codes to emerge. This work informed the research team’s planned action. For example, during early one-to-one sessions, the field researcher noted that PPMs felt frustrated, but many did not believe it was appropriate to talk about these feelings openly. Our coding reflected that this emotional context was highly salient to PPMs. Drawing on extant research on the role of outsiders in helping others navigate emotions (Vince & Broussine, 1996), we decided to purposefully encourage emotional release in subsequent meetings with PPMs. We captured this in a preliminary model and continued examining emotions as a key element of our inquiry.

Guided by our research design and further literature review, our theorizing evolved once we left the field. In post-field theorizing, we continued iterating between raw data and theoretical interpretations (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013). We carried on with open-coding, asking how HR professionals (together with the field researcher) supported focal actors. While the topic of paradox and the important role of supporting actors had emerged early on and had informed the actions we took, the precise theoretical categories that formed our current model surfaced after multiple iterations. For example, we had initially focused on performance and well-being as two competing demands, but after carefully reviewing our data, we realized that the overarching short-term/long-term label better captured the PPMs’ varied experiences of tensions. We also went back to the follow-up interviews we conducted in December 2015 and in August and September 2016 with PPMs, managers, HR professionals, and purchasing VPs. These interviews captured how the initiatives launched in the planned action phase unfolded once we left the field (Herr & Anderson, 2015) and their impact on the PPM role. We identified shifts in PPMs’ patterns of responses and reformulated our research question to focus on the shift from vicious to virtuous cycle. During post-field theorizing we also turned to the literature on social-symbolic work (Phillips & Lawrence, 2012), sharpening our focus on shared meanings, relationships, and emotions that shaped the paradox.

Finally, we examined the relationships among conceptual categories and integrated existing literature to build a theoretical model explaining how and why categories were related. We grouped our theoretical categories into aggregate theoretical dimensions and drew on this base to model how supporting actors’ social-symbolic work helps shift paradox dynamics from vicious to virtuous cycles (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A Model of Shifting Paradox Dynamics: The Role of Supporting Actors.

Reflexivity

Throughout our planned action and after we left the field, we took steps to ensure reflexivity (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). Because the research team included outsiders to the field, we engaged in regular debriefing meetings to discuss emerging questions. Insights enabled by these discussions nourished the field researcher’s interactions with HR professionals and decisions made in the field and enriched post-field theorizing. Researchers outside the field continuously asked clarification and elaboration questions that aided theme identification. Themes were adopted after close re-examination of the data, such that if emerging theorizing was disconnected from the data, the field researcher pushed back to ensure theory was well grounded.

Findings

Through our action research, we identified a process through which focal actors transition from vicious cycle to cycle break, to cycle reversal, and finally to virtuous cycle. In each phase, we explain (1) the shift experienced by the focal actor, (2) the social-symbolic work conducted by the supporting actor to foster this shift, and (3) reasons why the supporting actor was well positioned to foster this shift. Although we present these phases in a linear way, they overlapped on multiple occasions and often involved repeated iterations. On a day-to-day basis we observed a number of slippages, including PPMs who were not engaged in the process or failed to participate. The resulting model provides a big picture of the major stages of the shift. Table 2 displays additional evidence for our findings.

Table 2.

Data Supporting our Model.

Aggregate theoretical dimensions	Second-order codes	First-order codes	Exemplary quotes or notes from our journal entries
Focal actors’ shifting dynamics	Vicious cycle	Overfocus on the short term	There is a general obsession with KPIs. This is how we make decisions about time. (interview with PPM)
		Inability to consider long-term goals	Many PPMs don’t sign up for trainings because of their workload. They feel there’s always a problem at the plant that needs their immediate attention. (interview with HR professional)
	Cycle break	Reflexivity on one’s own behaviors	I hadn’t thought about it this way but I keep postponing trainings and taking on emergencies. . . it’s not only their fault, it’s my own doing. (interview with PPM)
		Saying no to operational requests	I have now started to explain to the plant manager where my responsibilities end. If raw materials don’t arrive on time, they shouldn’t call me and I shouldn’t spend time on solving that issue (interview with PPM).
	Cycle reversal	Trying out new ways of behaving	We started to list ways to be accountable for learning new skills or for strategic planning. (interview with PPM)
	Virtuous cycle	Awareness	The tensions of the job will never change, but in talking with PPMs I have noticed they understand their role differently and they know they have to learn how to handle such tensions. (follow-up interview with HR professional)
		Willingness to shift between long-term and short-term goals	PPMs and managers are still focused on getting operational matters rolling when PPMs assume their role, but they’re also carving out time to consider the on-boarding checklist long-term activities. [. . .] One year after the planned action, a PPM with no purchasing experience was hired. This wouldn’t have been possible earlier; someone without a purchasing background wouldn’t have survived one day. (journal entry during follow-up)
Supporting actors’ social-symbolic work	Breaking dysfunctional dynamics	Questioning persistent beliefs about the opposing poles of the paradox	PPMs talk about the short-term demands of their job as “constantly putting out fires,” or “being swamped with emergencies.” They hate this. But what if they thought about it as becoming operational experts and learning to make decisions fast? (notes from HR meeting)
		Revamping assumptions about one’s role	PPMs: not simply buyers, but strategic liaisons between the purchasing division and the plants (HR presentation to champions of the initiative)
		Giving free rein to emotions	In today’s meeting with the HR team, we discussed our role during the one-to-one interviews with PPMs. We felt that, at this point, all we need to do is be a listening ear and make the PPMs feel comfortable in talking to us. [. . .] A colleague tells them that it’s OK to be angry (journal entry).
	Facilitating new responses	Materializing the poles in symbolic objects	Together with [HR professionals], we created a visualization of PPMs’ trajectory [. . .] from the moment she is hired to the moment she is an active member of the procurement community. It’s a great way to avoid drowning in short-term pressures, as it keeps the long-term in view. (journal entry)
		Enabling trustful relationships	As I presented the slides, I told them that the success of the program would depend on mutual collaboration and communication. (journal entry)
		Fostering emotional equanimity	Some PPMs and managers are clearly bothered by the pressures of long-term goals. We took the time to acknowledge the difficulties of these competing demands. I think that recognizing this helped them focus on today’s task. (journal entry)
	Embedding virtuous dynamics in the organization	Making flexibility a central feature of the role	We worked on an HR presentation for PPMs and managers. [ . . . To show] how much a PPM job could add to TradeCo’s employees, we used the picture of a happy woman looking upwards “as if she is aiming for a better future.” The slide says: “a critical and comprehensive position with an opportunity to discover industry jobs and to develop multifunctional competencies. An all-inclusive preparation for [. . .] acquiring competencies for today and tomorrow.” Our goal was to show that the position had been upgraded. (journal entry)
		Tapping into a broader network of actors	In the last meeting, we met with [senior executives from the purchasing department]. It’s important to show them [. . .] that what PPMs do every day has an impact in the long run. (journal entry)
		Capitalizing on ambivalence to motivate flexible response	People are optimistic, but they have their doubts. I discussed with the research team whether or not we could build on it. In any case, we need to let them express it. (journal entry)
Supporting actors’ position	Outsider to the paradox	Perspective (phase 1)	We are able to take a step back. We aren’t experiencing [the tensions] so we see the situation differently. (interview with HR professionals)
		Neutrality (phases 1 & 2)	When we have a problem, we can’t always talk to our manager [. . .] And we often need to be advised or to have someone from HR help us to facilitate a situation. (interview with PPM)
	Insider to the organization	Connection to both local and organization-wide systems and people (phases 2 & 3)	One of our advantages is that we can connect with PPMs but also leverage the knowledge we have about the organization. For example, we were able to reach out to other departments to see what they were doing in terms of on-boarding. (interview with HR professional)
		Long-term commitment (phase 3)	They are our colleagues and we say it in our presentations but we want them to succeed. We mean it. (interview with HR professional)

Phase 1: From vicious cycle to cycle break

Focal actors’ shift

Early in our study, we found PPMs were stuck in a vicious cycle. Short-term tasks absorbed most of their time and were so overwhelming that they had become increasingly equated with the negative aspect of the job. PPMs were continuously attending operational needs, which created an image of the PPM as the go-to person for manufacturing emergencies. As a result, many PPMs increased their physical presence at the plant, which further reinforced their involvement in operational issues and their overfocus on short-term goals. In contrast, they felt incapable of considering long-term goals. Long-term oriented tasks and projects, like strategic initiatives or learning new skills, were equated with the positive, yet unrealistic, aspect of the job. PPM 8 commented:

In this job, you need to show you can perform the day you start. It’s ridiculous and impossible. So, we are often doing things poorly because the pressure is so high. There’s no time to learn, and there’s no one making sure we have the right skills and the right support. (notes from interview)

PPMs felt spread thin across two worlds: in one they were constantly confronting an “insurmountable workload,” deliverables that were “half-baked at best,” and a feeling of never-ending “drowning” (interviews with PPMs 1, 3, 9); in the other, there were opportunities for growth and self-development, but shifting gears for these long-term goals and projects felt impossible. In addition, the more they overlooked long-term aspects of their job, the more meaningless short-term tasks became; and the more they focused on the short term, the more they lost perspective about the relevance of their role. In our notes we wrote:

PPMs were frustrated that they often couldn’t participate in [long-term] projects that were critical for smooth plant functioning because these had no direct and measurable impact on [a PPM’s] individual performance. Typically, when PPMs did get involved, they received little feedback or no recognition for their actions. (notes from HR meeting)

However, by the end of the first month, we observed what we called a break in the PPMs’ vicious cycle. While some PPMs and managers were doubtful about the action research, many started to reflect on the nature of their short-term/long-term responsibilities and their combined implications for the purchasing department and the plant. In one journal entry we wrote:

One PPM told me how his work is dictated by one-time imperatives that are extremely urgent for the plant, yet short-lived. He said the easy way out would be to have a full-time assignment at the plant. But this would deprive him of his connection to TradeCo’s overall procurement strategy. [For example, he could end up] adding a new supplier without considering that increasing the size of the supplier base potentially prevents wider economies of scale for TradeCo as a whole.

Similarly, PPM 10 reflected that he was overwhelmed by the constant flow of demands from the plant, but was beginning to see how his actions were contributing to this “unsustainable” dynamic (notes from interview). Some commented on how shared beliefs around the importance of meeting KPIs—what they described as a “KPI culture”—could be fueling the one-sidedness in the PPM role, i.e., a focus on performance over learning.

In many cases, reflection was accompanied by an emotional release of frustration and anger. Freed from this emotional overload, some began to set limits by saying no to operational requests. A PPM noted that he was starting to be more conscious about which plant meetings he attended and which problems were his responsibility (journal entry). The cycle break occurred especially during one-to-one interviews with HR professionals (including the field researcher) and led to a phase in which shared understandings that had pushed PPMs to prioritize only one aspect of their job were challenged. We wrote:

One PPM talked about how he is rethinking his role in managing crisis at the plant because this is not his direct responsibility. He said he should say “no” more often or minimize his time commitment to these activities; but he admits this is easier said than done. (journal entry)

Ongoing reflection around established meanings began to create a fertile ground for crafting new responses to competing demands.

Supporting actors’ social-symbolic work: Breaking dysfunctional dynamics

To interrupt the PPMs’ vicious cycle, HR professionals and the action researcher engaged in the breaking of dysfunctional dynamics. These actions targeted the social-symbolic context, seeking to reduce and eventually halt a focal actor’s entrenchment in counter-productive responses that favored the short-term pole of the paradox. Such efforts sought to dismantle the belief of intractability, questioning meanings that tainted or idealized the poles, the existing assumptions about the focal actor’s role, and appropriateness of expressing emotions when confronting paradox.

First, HR professionals and the field researcher invited PPMs to question the persistent positive and negative beliefs about the short-term and long-term poles. For example, in an interview with a PPM, an HR professional sought to acknowledge the negative connotations of short-term pressures, then shifted the conversation by asking: “Can you think of positive aspects of all these immediate demands? What is valuable about dealing with all these pressing issues on a daily basis?” (journal entry).

HR professionals hinted that meeting ongoing short-term demands enabled PPMs to gain experience and relevant skills, and to develop relationships with many people across the organization. HR professionals also recognized that a long-term orientation was challenging. Building up partnerships with key suppliers, for example, took a lot of time and long-term vision. But they invited PPMs to consider long-term goals as directly intertwined with daily pressing matters. They introduced notions such as “continuous improvement” and “learning by experience and exposure” (journal entry and HR documents) to convey the idea that long-term aspects of the job were more fluid than fixed.

Second, HR professionals and the field researcher sought to revamp assumptions about the PPM’s role. At TradeCo, there was a generalized belief that becoming a PPM was not a good career move. It was seen, in fact, as “a double punishment” that exposed them to “more problems than rewards” (journal entry). As we entered the field, this narrow understanding of the PPMs’ role struck us. In our notes, we wrote:

In the past, the PPM role was seen as a key role for the organization. For the PPMs themselves it was a well-rounded position and a chance to move up in the company because of the variety of tasks and challenges they were exposed to. [. . .] HR professionals know this view has changed and want to help PPMs see their role as an opportunity to become leaders. (journal entry)

Accordingly, together with HR professionals, we sought to revamp the PPM role as a “critical and complete position” (HR presentation), in one-to-one conversations and in official meetings. We began to talk about it as “a career opportunity” with “substantial added-value for employability” (HR document), and referred to the “comprehensive” mission of the PPM, which offered “great exposure to the strategic and manufacturing sides of the organization” and delivered “an all-inclusive preparation” for leadership roles (HR document). One HR professional stressed: “There is great value in helping PPMs shift from ‘I am a buyer and I focus on my portfolio’ to ‘I am a buyer and I’m also a key contributor to plant performance’” (notes from interview).

Third, HR professionals and the field researcher gave free rein to emotional release. Even though the short-term and long-term concerns were the source of much frustration and even anger, PPMs often felt it was not appropriate to express such negative emotions, particularly to their managers. There was a generalized idea that they had to “suck it up and keep going” (journal entry), otherwise they would be seen as “incompetent” (notes from interview with PPM 5). TradeCo’s constant emphasis on employee well-being made their frustration and anger all the more unfitting (notes from interview with PPM 6). Yet in one-to-one meetings this frustration was quite palpable. PPM 4 describes vividly the lack of recognition she suffers from:

I wish my hierarchical manager [from the purchasing department] would pay more attention to the added value I provide as a PPM for the plant. Right now, he only looks at the purchasing productivity results, but to me this is not right, this is not fair!

HR professionals and the field researcher purposefully turned their PPMs meetings into outlets for emotional release. Beginning each conversation, the HR professional stated that it was “acceptable, even desirable” (journal entry) to express emotions in all their intensity. Meetings were also scheduled in places offering privacy. To illustrate, consider this journal entry:

PPMs are opening up during interviews. [. . .] We simply make a point about wanting to listen and they share their frustrations. Many talked about how being involved in daily operation control leads to frictions with plant personnel which also affects their long-term involvement in improvement projects. It is an emotional topic for them.

Supporting actors’ position during phase 1

In various informal conversations with the field researcher during this first phase, HR professionals pointed out how their own position as “outsiders to the paradox” helped PPMs open up about their situation (journal entry). Having some distance from the ongoing tug-of-war—that is, not having any stake in how PPMs’ activities were prioritized—enabled HR professionals to be perceived as neutral when questioning existing beliefs about the PPMs’ role. PPMs understood that they were not being watched and could speak freely. One HR professional commented: “Because we are not [the PPMs’] managers or affiliated to the plant, we do not take sides. And we understand the PPM is stuck in the middle.”

Additionally, being outsiders to the paradox allowed HR professionals to have perspective vis-a-vis the social and symbolic implications of a PPM’s experience of competing demands. This was central in revamping assumptions about the nature of the focal actors’ role within the organization and in creating a space for emotional release. One HR professional explained:

After gathering the points of view of the PPMs, their managers, and other interested parties within TradeCo, we have a well-rounded idea of the issues PPMs face. The kinds of solutions we are thinking of are not just tailored to one PPM, they address the problem at a larger scale. (notes from conversation with HR professional)

Phase 2: From cycle break to cycle reversal

Focal actors’ shift

The ongoing questioning of established meanings had made explicit the downward spiral in which PPMs had been entrenched. This awareness opened an opportunity to try out new ways of behaving. During the phase we term cycle reversal, PPMs experimented with “both/and” approaches to their short-term/long-term paradox. This trial-and-error mode entailed applying tools that made it easier for PPMs and managers to systematically accept the two poles. Even though some PPMs and managers remained unsure of the impact these activities could have, most were willing to participate in meetings and develop tools that could help change deep-rooted behaviors within TradeCo’s purchasing department. For example, some PPMs began to share their best practices regarding use of time and managing the relationship with the plant. In one of our meetings, a PPM offered his thoughts on how to free up time for strategic thinking while responding to the pressing needs of the plant. In our notes we wrote:

One PPM talked about how he adopted a preventive approach. He started educating people at the plant so that, if a problem with suppliers occurred, they would reach out to the correct person in the chain of command instead of resorting to the PPM. He explained that by removing unnecessary loads, he could then focus on both emergencies that really matter and plant improvement initiatives. (emphasis added)

Supporting actors’ social-symbolic work: Facilitating new responses

To move from cycle break to cycle reversal, HR professionals and the action researcher sought to facilitate new responses. Focal actors were encouraged to search for synergies across competing and interrelated demands and exploration into how these might be integrated through trial-and-error activities. Through these actions, HR professionals together with the action researcher helped shape the social-symbolic context, striving to transform an exhausting emphasis on short-term demands into a more balanced and sustainable effort. These actions started a month into the action research, once the field researcher had gained a good understanding of the PPM’s situation, and were primarily identified through observations in working sessions that involved HR professionals, PPMs, and managers.

First, HR professionals together with the field researcher materialized the poles through objects that symbolized the synergetic nature of competing demands. These objects consisted of tools (e.g., a process, document, timeline, plan) that encouraged consideration of both short-term and long-term demands. PPMs and managers were invited to participate in working sessions to design these tools and thus eliminate the guesswork and emotional overload of dealing with contradictory situations. The tools also allowed for customization to individual needs or adaptation to current conditions. To narrow the sessions’ focus, we selected three key situations that triggered conflicting yet interrelated tensions: the onboarding process of new PPMs, work allocation decisions (plant vs. purchasing department), and career management.

For example, PPMs’ onboarding entailed the incorporation of the PPM into the plant and the purchasing department. During this process, short-term and long-term demands were pitted against one another as new PPMs were expected to start fulfilling the tasks associated with the supply of commodities to the plant immediately, while also engaging in technical trainings and mastery of various skills needed for strategic decision-making. PPMs saw these expectations as conflicting but related: “We can’t do our job without the training, and we can’t be experts without the work. But, really, how can we do both?” (notes from interview with PPM 3). The onboarding tool materialized both poles by offering a checklist of actions that addressed both short-term and long-term demands for PPMs and managers to discuss on the PPMs’ first day. Specifically, the tool included a three-day shadowing with senior PPMs that would familiarize new PPMs with their core tasks (short term); a monthly mentoring program with former PPMs to address longer-term job responsibilities (long term); a checklist of key people to meet within their first week in the PPM role (short term); and a plan of soft and hard skills development over their first year (long term).

Second, HR professionals and the field researcher sought to enable trustful relationships during these working sessions by encouraging PPMs and managers to work closely together. In one-to-one conversations, PPMs had often linked their experience of tensions to the lack of managerial support. According to PPMs, the manager could provide valued guidance regarding how to prioritize work and navigate conflicts between short-term and long-term demands. At the same time, the short-term dominated vicious cycle in which they found themselves often precluded PPMs from having open discussions with managers about how to cope with competing demands. By creating working groups of PPMs and managers, we sought to foster and strengthen a key relationship for getting work done. In our observations, we wrote:

The purchasing VP commented that some very important foundations were put in place. Usually, managers focus exclusively on their goals and on how PPMs can help them achieve their goals. Today, everyone focused on the PPM’s daily work. Most people acknowledged the need to give more credit to the PPMs’ work beyond the purchasing department.

Developing a trustful relationship with their managers also enhanced the PPMs’ sense of empowerment when making difficult decisions. Oftentimes, a PPM’s decision regarding purchase of raw material could meet the strategic requirements of the purchasing department, but negatively affect the plant’s short-term performance measures. PPMs described how having the manager on their side represented “a vote of confidence” that enabled them to bypass the obsession with KPIs (interview with PPM 6) in favor of longer-term goals.

We also defined periodic reviews among plant managers, purchasing managers, and PPMs. Through these exchanges, we sought to encourage difficult conversations regarding challenges of integrating conflicting yet interrelated demands. As one HR professional explained: “Thanks to the working sessions, purchasing managers recognize the importance of reaching an alignment with the respective plant managers, and PPMs feel more at ease to ask them to do so” (notes from interview with HR professional).

Third, HR professionals and the field researcher fostered emotional equanimity, understood as a state of “emotional calm and evenness” that reduces “anxiety and fear spurred by inconsistencies” (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 392). They purposefully encouraged calm, avoiding heightened negative emotions. HR professionals thus emphasized at the beginning of working sessions that, while sincerity was appreciated and encouraged, PPMs should focus on making things better.

To this end, we created a list of basic rules of engagement, asking participants to have a constructive positive attitude, leave personal frustrations at the door, and build on others’ ideas. These rules and our efforts to cap negative emotions represented our joint commitment to help PPMs respond to tensions in more productive ways. For example, tensions associated with the onboarding process often triggered intense discussions. In our journal, we wrote:

These working sessions can be animated. [Today,] we talked about the challenges of onboarding: managers complained about lagging performance while PPMs were vocal about insufficient training, especially in financial skills. To calm them down I tried to focus their energy on the “here and now.” (journal entry)

Supporting actors’ position during phase 2

In this phase, the position of HR professionals as insiders to the organization but outsiders to the paradox was an important driver in moving focal actors to experiment with new responses. Similar to the first phase, HR professionals felt that being outsiders allowed them to be perceived as neutral and genuinely interested in finding “both/and” solutions. As one HR manager explained, “PPMs know that our mission is to support employees so that they can put their skills to good use, now and in the future, and feel good about it” (interview with HR professional). Distance from day-to-day operational emergencies also allowed HR professionals to carry the initiative forward, regardless of whether some PPMs and/or managers were constrained by their ongoing responsibilities.

Additionally, HR professionals could leverage their connection to local contexts and organization-wide systems and people. That is, they developed a good understanding of the PPMs’ day-to-day challenges without losing sight of the resources available at TradeCo. For example, once HR professionals understood the onboarding challenges many PPMs faced, they reached out to other departments that might have already implemented effective onboarding solutions. The field researcher commented: “PPMs are focused on their own challenges but we have the possibility to search across the company for benchmarks. We [. . .] know that if a solution is not compatible with TradeCo’s pre-existing processes [. . .] it won’t last” (email from the field researcher to the research team). Similarly, the purchasing VP highlighted the connecting position of HR professionals as follows: “HR is a catalyst, an organizer, a driving force that can anchor new practices in a culture” (interview with the purchasing VP).

Phase 3: From cycle reversal to virtuous cycle

Focal actors’ shift

After having experimented with new ways of engaging short-term and long-term demands synergistically, PPMs started to adopt some of the new responses in a more systematic way. A virtuous cycle was gaining momentum. In follow-up interviews conducted at TradeCo one year after the planned action, we found PPMs were more aware of the opportunities of embracing short-term/long-term demands as well as of being supported by HR professionals. This awareness had led PPMs to flexibly step in and out of “crisis mode” as needed and, hence, to manage their presence at the plant. To illustrate:

I now have a better understanding of how to work the two worlds of a PPM: the operational and the strategic. Despite the pressure, I find satisfaction in doing so because people are a lot more open now [to discuss conflicting situations]. (follow-up interview with PPM 4)

While a few PPMs were still struggling, many expressed that, in doing their job, they felt “[they] have better tools to confront these kinds of tensions in [their] work” (notes from interview with PPM 16). Unlike the first round of interviews a year earlier, such tensions were not described as “issues” resulting from a poorly understood role or from an overload of work, but as “the part of being a PPM that makes the role all the more relevant to the company” (follow-up interview with PPM 3).

PPMs were also more willing to shift their responses depending on the situation. For example, while at the start of the study PPMs constantly focused on the plants’ pressing requests, forgetting the long-term strategic goals of the purchasing department, one year after the planned action, they were more aware of the importance of both the plant’s and the purchasing department’s interests. In our observations we wrote:

The fact that PPMs are in a complex situation has not changed. But we are seeing more of those new behaviors. When choosing suppliers, a PPM just told me that he was feeling more comfortable than before with balancing the interests of the plant and those of TradeCo. [. . .] Sometimes changing a supplier from a high-cost country to a low-cost country may seem great in terms of generating a productivity boost and improving monthly KPIs, but problematic for the plant in the long run because technical standards must be met. Other times, [it’s the opposite]. To him, it’s important to keep both interests in mind.

This ability to shift was also noticed by PPMs. Many PPMs mentioned how the tools allowed them to address short-term demands and long-term goals.

With the onboarding, the checklist, the competency reviews, we [PPMs] are starting to be leaders and facilitators in many projects rather than just reacting to requests. I think we understand the stakes and our environment better. (follow-up interview with PPM 1)

Supporting actors’ social-symbolic work: Embedding virtuous dynamics in the organization

Embedding activities were aimed at ensuring that contextual conditions needed to sustain a virtuous cycle remained over time. This required engagement with other organizational areas to garner support. These activities started three months into the study, but were predominant at the end of the action research and in the following year in project meeting sessions and HR steering committees.

First, as the end of the planned action approached, HR professionals and the field researcher focused on making flexibility a central feature of the role. They began to describe the essence of the PPM role as wearing two hats. One HR professional commented:

What we did was to recombine the objectives of the role in a way that conveyed the idea of “wearing multiple hats” as a key component of a PPM’s tasks. We want to communicate that it’s not about compromising between conflicting objectives, but about flexibly engaging with them at the same time. (interview with HR professional)

This image resonated with PPMs, who felt it was “a way of acknowledging the challenges that come with the job” (interview with PPM 15). In an HR project meeting, one HR professional stressed the importance of consistently using this language, because “[the image] really does convey that PPMs are bound to face competing demands as part of their job” (journal entry). As a result, the expression was consistently and purposefully incorporated in various forms of communication, including PowerPoint presentations, the PPMs’ job description, and training materials.

HR professionals and the field researcher then reformulated the main objective of the PPM role in job description documents:

A PPM should manage projects in accordance with both the immediate needs of the plant and the long-term, strategic orientation of the purchasing department, and to contribute to reach the productivity targets of both the plant and the purchasing function, while taking the lead in strategic, purchasing-related initiatives. (HR job description document)

They also led an effort to “valorize” (i.e., change the relative perception of) the PPM role within the organization. This initiative involved increasing the hierarchical level of the role and improving the proficiency profile of the PPM to a “career focus” (HR documents). These changes were aimed at capturing the complex demands of the role and at repositioning it as a steppingstone for future management roles at TradeCo.

Second, HR professionals and the field researcher tapped into a broader network of actors to create long-lasting paradox engagement. They fostered exchanges between PPMs and champions of the planned action as well as members of top management. These relationships represented a powerful sign that PPMs had organization-wide support to make the tough decisions that were sometimes part of dealing with paradoxical tensions. When we returned to the field one year later, we observed evidence of this support in events where top management members met with PPMs and addressed issues related to the operational complexity of TradeCo’s industry and the need to understand drivers of long-term strategic success. In one meeting, these were described as “the key components of TradeCo’s strategy and desirable skills to master anywhere” (journal entry).

Third, HR professionals and the field researcher capitalized on ambivalence to motivate a virtuous cycle. We initiated our action research with the goal of “put[ting] PPMs in a position to succeed, now and in the future” (journal entry). Hence, nearing the end of the planned action, we sought to maintain momentum and foster emotions that would facilitate more virtuous responses to paradox in the long run. PPMs, managers, and other stakeholders were enthusiastic about finding new opportunities for synergy, but they were also anxious about the possibility that these changes would fade once HR professionals stepped away. The field researcher wrote:

Everyone who has been involved in the project wants to embrace these ideas around flexibility. But they are also worried that it won’t last. They compare it to the million other projects they’ve seen that simply die because of lack of follow-up or changes in the organization. (journal entry)

HR professionals and the field researcher began final sessions by surfacing their ambivalence. Drawing on existing literature (Pratt & Pradies, 2012), the research team suggested that this complex emotion primes learning and information processing. HR professionals along with the field researcher assuaged ambivalence with stories that offered helpful insights. Stories focused on PPMs and managers who were successfully implementing strategies to integrate short-term and long-term demands in their day-to-day activities. For example, they shared how one PPM was so often caught up in resolving operational issues, that he had never taken advantage of professional development opportunities, especially those that fostered soft skills (like effective communication). He described himself as part of the “KPI culture” (journal entry). However, as he began viewing the PPM role as a platform for a future management position, he realized KPIs were only one dimension of the role; that it was not the only criterion that determined performance and potential for advancement. He explained that, at times, it was indeed necessary to focus on KPIs, but at other times it was important to say no to daily requests and to engage in initiatives that mattered for the long run (journal entry and HR presentation).

Supporting actors’ position during phase 3

During this phase, the position of HR professionals as insiders to the organization helped facilitate the endurance of a virtuous cycle. As insiders, HR professionals could leverage their connection to local and organization-wide systems and people to build social support for PPMs. They understood the formal and informal networks through which knowledge and practices can spread. For example, one HR professional mentioned in a meeting, the need to speak with a purchasing director early on and keep him informed as he could be a strong support while remaining cautious with another purchasing director who might be wary of the changes.

Second, HR professionals had a vested interest in embedding the new, virtuous dynamics due to their developed connection with PPMs. This long-term commitment was expressed by HR professionals in many ways. Some wanted to show PPMs that this project was “not yet another whim” and to see their efforts endure. Others empathized with PPMs, eager to help them change “for good” (interview with HR professionals).

Discussion

Through this action research, we sought to address how a shift from vicious to virtuous cycle unfolds. More specifically, our model identifies three, pivotal efforts undertaken by supporting actors to enable a progressive shift: (1) breaking dysfunctional dynamics to disrupt the vicious cycle; (2) facilitating new responses to enable cycle reversal; and (3) embedding virtuous dynamics in the organization. The resulting process model offers two, overarching contributions to paradox theory, adding depth to how shifts in paradox dynamics occur and expanding our understanding of who supports and enables these shifts.

First, this study shines light on how paradox dynamics unfold by examining the role of the social-symbolic context. Reviewed literature posits that working through paradox involves individuals’ cognitive and behavioral efforts to bring together competing demands (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Our work reinforces past findings, highlighting the importance of embracing a both/and mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018) and adopting behaviors that help actors alternate between the poles of a paradox (Smith, 2014). Yet our research further unpacks how internal workings of an organization can create a social-symbolic scaffolding that locks vicious dynamics in place. Hence, even if focal actors recognize both poles of the paradox as salient (Knight & Paroutis, 2017) or possess a paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), the environment in which they operate may prevent any meaningful shifts. The mechanisms we identify as social-symbolic work move beyond focal actors’ isolated efforts to reach a “workable certainty” in the face of paradox (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008, p. 230), and highlight how any active effort to shift from one cycle to another is embedded in a broader system of meanings and social relationships.

More concretely, our three-phase model identifies a number of social-symbolic elements that can lock or unlock paradox dynamics, namely, the emotions experienced by focal actors, the sets of relationships through which focal actors get work done, and the shared meanings attached to the poles of the paradox and to the roles of those facing it. Paradox scholarship has hinted at the importance of some of these contextual elements in engaging paradoxical demands, such as the role of emotions (Vince & Broussine, 1996), and, more specifically, of emotional equanimity (Calabretta, Gemser, & Wijnberg, 2017). Our paper extends such work, proposing that different levels of emotional activation (from heightened to low) and valences (negative or ambivalent) may be needed at different times to create the right environment for paradox shifts to occur. Similarly, scholars have pointed to the role of trust in allowing individuals to discuss their experience of tensions (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), and to the value of a broader support system within the organization (Calabretta et al., 2017; Knight & Paroutis, 2017). Here again, our study explicates how relationships evolve during paradox shifts. While trust created conditions for new responses to emerge, reaching out to a broader set of organizational actors helped sustain virtuous dynamics over time. Additionally, scholars have noted that the poles of a paradox may evoke particular meanings, such as high and low status (Huq et al., 2017; Schad et al., 2016). Our paper urges scholars to be attentive to these meanings and the extent to which they are shared as they are consequential to locking or shifting dynamics. We find that, in a similar fashion, the meanings that organizational members attach to the roles of those facing paradoxical demands matter to the process of shifting dynamics.

Second, while investigating how shifting paradox dynamics occur, we foregrounded the issue of who enables these shifts, providing deep emphasis on the role of supporting actors. We demonstrate that a multiplicity of actors is consequential to the patterns of paradox responses. While extant literature explicates paradoxes as socially constructed by the actors facing paradoxical demands (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017; Lê & Bednarek, 2017), our work identifies a wider range of social dynamics that influence how focal actors cope. More specifically, we portray the shifting of paradox cycles as a collective effort that may involve others who are insiders to the organization yet outsiders to the paradox. The resulting model proports a role for different types of actors—who vary in their distance to the paradox and/or their position within the organization—to shape how opposing demands are kept in dynamic tension. In so doing, we show that the how of shifting cycles can never be understood without a consideration of the who.

Interestingly, studies that have looked at the potential role of “others” in working through tensions have examined actors who are either outsiders or insiders to the organization. Outsiders, for instance, include consultants or educators who are disconnected from the experience of the paradoxical tensions. They help focal actors “break free of the grip” of vicious cycles (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003, p. 407) by fostering new cognitive skills to manage paradox (Calabretta et al., 2017; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Insiders, such as leaders or managers, are usually in a position to create structures such as reward systems to surface and protect paradoxical tensions within the organizations over time (Huq et al., 2017; Knight & Paroutis, 2017).

Our paper expands these studies by suggesting that the challenges of dealing with paradoxical tensions—and hence, the need for someone else’s involvement—are not stable but rather change over time. For example, our study reveals that supporting actors who are “outsiders-within”—members of the organization but outsiders to the specific tensions (e.g., personnel from HR, IT, R&D, etc.)—can play a critical role. Early in the process, their outsiders’ perspective and neutrality vis-a-vis the tug-of-war helps break dysfunctional dynamics. In a later stage, however, their insiders’ organizational commitment and understanding of the social and cultural underpinnings of tensions (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013) are critical to embed virtuous dynamics. Drawing on their dual position as outsiders-within, supporting actors can thus accompany focal actors through the ups and downs of a shifting process. While the everyday, sometimes mundane actions of focal actors may change in the moment and, therefore, be neither virtuous nor vicious (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017), we show that these outsiders-within operate at a more macro level. This stance grants them the possibility to view competing demands in a broader light, revealing and potentially influencing response patterns that may feed virtuous or vicious dynamics.

In fact, the term “outsiders-within” has been used in sociology to describe “the location of individuals who find themselves in the border space between groups” (Ryan, 2016). The unique position “sensitizes them to patterns that may be more difficult for established [. . .] insiders to see” (Collins, 1986, p. 53). Residing at the margins allows supporting actors to be more creative than insiders and, at the same time, leverage resources and social capital that outsiders may not access. In particular, our action research showed HR professionals as valued supporting actors in fostering shifts. These outsiders-within enabled focal actors to uncover alternative paradox response patterns that better aligned with the goals of the organization. Our findings resonate with theories in human resource management that highlight HR professionals as central in linking operation and strategy and/or people and strategy (Francis & Keegan, 2006).

Boundary conditions and future research implications

While our model offers new insights on shifting dynamics and the role of supporting actors, we wish to acknowledge some specificities of our research context. First, we posit the value of engaging dedicated actors capable of serving as outsiders-within. In this case, we examined HR professionals as supporting actors positioned to help (re)shape meanings for employees facing short-term/long-term tensions. Yet other types of supporting actors might also facilitate paradox shifts. For example, an organization’s commitment to both digital privacy and transparency (Hung & Wong, 2009) could create paradoxical demands for its members and result in vicious cycles. In this case, IT professionals, by virtue of their position, might help focal actors shift their defensive responses and embrace both types of demands.

Second, we assert that supporting actors’ social-symbolic work is essential to support a shift from vicious to virtuous cycle. However, in our setting, this social-symbolic work occurred thanks to the impetus of the action researcher and her interactions with the team of supporting actors, of which she was a member. She oriented their attention to paradoxical demands and initiated the process of breaking dysfunctional dynamics. As the action research unfolded, social-symbolic work became a joint effort between the field researcher and the team of HR professionals. Still, future research is needed to examine what characteristics help supporting actors initiate paradox shifts on their own. For instance, a supporting actor may need to be sensitized to paradox and committed full-time to initiating and sustaining such shifts. Finally, it is important to note that the top management team was highly supportive of this work. Such a change effort—even with the presence of an action researcher within the supporting actors’ team—may be more difficult without leadership behind it.

In future research, we encourage scholars to continue unpacking how shifts from vicious to virtuous cycles occur. Indeed, our work surfaced further questions, such as does a shift persist over time? What contextual elements or symbolic work might initiate a reversion back toward a vicious cycle? With regard to supporting actors, are there any other criteria, such as having a paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), that may influence their ability to enable a successful and sustainable shift? Furthermore, while Meyerson and Scully (1995) note the emotional implications experienced by those they call tempered radicals, future research could study these implications for supporting actors helping others manage paradoxes.

To conclude, our model contributes deeper insights into the how and the who of shifting paradox dynamics. Applying a social-symbolic work lens may continue complicating understandings, further unpacking rich contextual influences on this process. And as paradox scholars triangulate more macro and micro insights into paradox dynamics, we hope this work encourages studies to examine supporting actors as outsiders-within.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Editor-in-Chief Trish Reay and three anonymous reviewers for their generous guidance in developing this manuscript. We would like to acknowledge and thank Jean-Yves Courtois, Clare Gately, Isabelle Mari, and Vanessa Pouthier for their friendly reviews of earlier versions of the paper. We are grateful to participants of the 2018 EGOS sub-track in Tallinn and in particular to Jane Lê for their helpful feedback. Finally, we would like to thank TradeCo’s HR team for its support.

Funding

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

Notes

Author biographies

Camille Pradies is Assistant Professor of Management at EDHEC Business School, France. Her research focuses on paradoxes and emotions such as ambivalence at the individual and group levels and on the organizational and institutional conditions that influence them.

Andrea Tunarosa is Assistant Professor of Management at the Sykes College of Business, University of Tampa. Her research focuses on how actors harness cultural resources to influence collective-level processes associated with sensemaking, coordination, and creativity.

Marianne W. Lewis is Dean of the Lindner College of Business, University of Cincinnati and Professor of Management. Her research explores leadership paradoxes in managing tensions, conflicts, and contradictions. Her paper, “Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide” received the Academy of Management Review Best Paper Award in 2000.

Julie Courtois is an independent researcher in human resources management in international companies. Her research focuses on the organizational paradoxes embedded within the HRM function.

References

Abdallah

Denis

Langley

(2011). Having your cake and eating it too: Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24, 333–348.

Andriopoulos

Lewis

M. W.

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

Barley

S. R.

Kunda

(2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12, 76–95.

Bradbury-Huang

(2010). What is good action research? Why the resurgent interest? Action Research, 8, 93–109.

Calabretta

Gemser

Wijnberg

N. M.

(2017). The interplay between intuition and rationality in strategic decision making: A paradox perspective. Organization Studies, 38, 365–401.

Collins

P. H.

(1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), 14–32.

Cunha

M. P.

Clegg

(2018). Persistence in paradox. In Farjoun

Smith

Langley

Tsoukas

(Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life (pp. 14– 34). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cunha

M. P.

Tsoukas

(2015). Reforming the state: Understanding the vicious circles of reform. European Management Journal, 33, 225–229.

Francis

Keegan

(2006). The changing face of HRM: In search of balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 16, 231–249.

10.

Gehman

Treviño

L. K.

Garud

(2013). Values work: A process study of the emergence and performance of organizational values practices. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 84–112.

11.

Gilbert

Michaud

Bentein

Dubois

Bédard

J.-L.

(2018). Unpacking the dynamics of paradoxes across levels cascading tensions and struggling professionals. In Farjoun

Smith

Langley

Tsoukas

(Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life (pp. 54–74). New York: Oxford University Press.

12.

Gioia

D. A.

Corley

K. G.

Hamilton

A. L.

(2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.

13.

Gond

J. P.

Cabantous

Krikorian

(2018). How do things become strategic? ‘Strategifying’ corporate social responsibility. Strategic Organization, 16, 241–272.

14.

Greenwood

D. J.

Levin

(2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oak, CA: SAGE Publications.

15.

Hambrick

D. C.

D’Aveni

R. A.

(1988). Large corporate failures as downward spirals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 1–23.

16.

Hargrave

T. J.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2017). Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38, 319–339.

17.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks: CA: SAGE Publications.

18.

Hochschild

A. R.

(1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551–575.

19.

Hung

Wong

Y. H.

(2009). Information transparency and digital privacy protection: Are they mutually exclusive in the provision of e-services? Journal of Services Marketing, 23, 154–164.

20.

Huq

J.-L.

Reay

Chreim

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

21.

Jarzabkowski

Lê

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

22.

Jarzabkowski

Lê

Van de Ven

A. H.

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

23.

Jay

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

24.

Knight

Paroutis

(2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38, 403 – 432.

25.

Lawrence

Phillips

(2019). Constructing organizational life: How social-symbolic work shapes selves, organizations, and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

Lê

Bednarek

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

W. K.

Lewis

Jarzabkowski

Langley

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions, and contradictions (pp. 490–512). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Lewis

M. W.

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

28.

Lewis

M. W.

Andriopoulos

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58–77.

29.

Lewis

M. W.

Dehler

G. E.

(2000). Learning through paradox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity. Journal of Management Education, 24, 708–725.

30.

Lüscher

L. S.

Lewis

M. W.

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

31.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

32.

Meyerson

D. E.

Scully

M. A.

(1995). Crossroads tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organization Science, 6, 585–600.

33.

Miron-Spektor

Erez

Naveh

(2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760.

34.

Miron-Spektor

Ingram

Keller

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

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

35.

Moisander

J. K.

Hirsto

Fahy

K. M.

(2016). Emotions in institutional work: A discursive perspective. Organization Studies, 37, 963–990.

36.

Phillips

Lawrence

T. B.

(2012). The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10, 223–230.

37.

Pratt

Pradies

(2012). Just a good place to visit? Exploring positive responses to psychological ambivalence. In Spreitzer

G. M.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 924–937). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

38.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

Banghart

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

39.

Raisch

Birkinshaw

(2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.

40.

Rocha Rodrigues

F. R.

Cunha

Rego

Clegg

. (2016). The seven pillars of paradoxical organizational wisdom: On the use of paradox as a vehicle to synthesize knowledge and ignorance. In Kupers

(Ed.), Wisdom learning: Perspectives on wising-up business and management education (pp. 98–116). New York: Routledge.

41.

Ryan

J. M.

(2016). Outsider-within. In Stone

(Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and nationalism. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118663202.wberen348# (accessed November 11, 2018).

42.

Schad

Lewis

M. W.

Raisch

Smith

W. K.

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

43.

Sheep

M. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Khazanchi

(2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38, 463–488.

44.

Smith

K. K.

Berg

D. N.

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

45.

Smith

W. K.

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

46.

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.

47.

Smith

Lewis

Tushman

(2011). Organizational sustainability: Organization design and senior leadership to enable strategic paradox. In Spreitzer

G. M.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 798–810). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

48.

Sundaramurthy

Lewis

(2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28, 397–415.

49.

Tsoukas

Cunha

M. P.

(2017). On organizational circularity. In Smith

W. K.

Lewis

Jarzabkowski

Langley

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions, and contradictions (pp. 393–412). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50.

Vince

Broussine

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