Developing a Paradox Mindset in Emerging Leaders: A Design Science Approach

Leadership Development

Despite significant insights over the past 20 years regarding how individuals grow as leaders, scant attention has been paid to learning interventions that might help facilitate leader development (Day, 2024). Traditional pedagogies, which focus on knowledge transmission through teacher-led instruction and rote memorization, often fall short of altering worldviews and behaviors. Even modern educational theories, such as constructivism, which emphasizes active learning and critical thinking, may overlook the social aspects of learning and offer limited insights into mindset transformation (Osborne, 2014; Petrie, 2014). These approaches fail to encourage deep reflection on underlying assumptions or provide the shared experiences essential for the significant perspective shifts needed to develop a paradox mindset (Jones et al., 2020).

Leader development research advocates for holistic approaches that go beyond formal training programs to incorporate a more integrated approach (Day, 2024; Wallace et al., 2021). This requires cultivating self-awareness (Goleman, 1995), promoting experiential learning (D. A. Kolb, 1984), and nurturing a growth mindset (Dweck, 2006). Building on this foundation, fostering a paradox mindset in emerging leaders may require a more holistic educational approach that integrates social learning and critical reflection. To date few efforts have been made to embed paradox mindset development into leadership education (Khan et al., 2025, Knight & Paroutis, 2017).

Transformative Learning

Developing a new mindset, such as a paradox mindset, requires transforming cognitive processes, deeply held assumptions, and mental models – an endeavor underpinned by learning (Kim et al., 2023). Transformative learning theory provides a useful framework for designing learning interventions aimed at developing and cultivating a paradox mindset.

While earlier learning theories such as behaviorism focused on observable changes in behavior through external reinforcement (Skinner, 1965), they overlooked the deep internal shifts required to reconcile and integrate contradictions. In contrast, transformative learning emphasizes the internal processes of meaning-making and critical reflection necessary for enduring mindset change. Rooted in experiential learning, it is defined as “the process by which we transform problematic frames of reference – mindsets, habits of mind, meaning perspectives – sets of assumptions and expectations, to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective and emotionally able to change” (Mezirow, 2006, p. 92). This transformation occurs through a series of experiences: encountering a disorienting dilemma, engaging in critical reflection, and participating in rational dialog (Mezirow, 1997). Together these experiences facilitate significant shifts in how individuals perceive, conceptualize, and interact with the world (Hoggan, 2016; Schnepfleitner et al., 2021).

Transformative learning plays a crucial role in helping leaders develop new approaches to familiar situations. It is particularly relevant for leadership educators and MBA students as it encourages a shift from traditional learning methods to more reflective and critical approaches. For educators, it offers a framework to design learning experiences that encourage students to question their assumptions, engage in dialog, and explore diverse perspectives, which is essential in understanding and dealing with paradoxical tensions. For students, transformative learning involves reflecting on personal experiences, reassessing beliefs, and remaining open to new viewpoints. This process strengthens their ability to connect theory with practice and explore opposing ideas, which are core for developing a paradox mindset.

There has been much examination of effective education programs for MBAs (e.g., Garvin, 2007; Kets de Vries & Korotov, 2007; Kim et al., 2023; Knight & Paroutis, 2017; Rafferty, 2013; Roglio & Light, 2009). For example, Kim et al. (2023) examine how educators can balance support and challenges to foster transformative learning. In their study executives initially exhibited a risk-averse mindset, focusing on minimizing potential harm. Through critical reflection and dialog, they realized the limitations of this narrow view and adopted more inclusive approaches. Similarly, leaders who favored an assertive negotiation style learned to integrate more collaborative and empathetic approaches, resulting in better outcomes. This aligns with Weick’s (2007) argument that effective leadership education requires individuals to “drop their tools,” that is, to unlearn rigid habits and assumptions that no longer serve them. This process of disorientation and reconfiguration is central to transformative learning and is supported by reflection, peer learning, and a willingness to challenge deeply held beliefs.

Transformative learning involves several interrelated and iterative processes (Mezirow, 2006). A disorienting dilemma challenges existing beliefs and assumptions, prompting critical reflection on values and assumptions. Through rational discourse, individuals engage in open dialog to explore alternative viewpoints. As learners begin to explore new roles they test and integrate these new perspectives. Reintegration occurs when these new understandings are incorporated into a new worldview, a more adaptive and inclusive mindset, and significant changes in self-concept, behaviors and capacity. However, the integration of transformative learning strategies can be slow (Mezirow, 1997), particularly in structured environments like MBA programs, due to curriculum rigidity, time constraints, or limited opportunities for reflective practice (Ossai et al., 2025; Yang, 2025). This slowness can have tangible consequences such as reduced leader preparedness for complexity, missed opportunities for innovation, and a diminished ability to navigate paradoxical tensions (Ossai et al., 2025). For instance, leaders unprepared for complexity may become overwhelmed, they may struggle to respond to change and default to short-term fixes. Poor navigation of paradoxical tensions may lead to suboptimal, either/or decisions rather than integrative solutions that create long-term value. The process is recursive rather than linear, involving ongoing reflection and reassessment (Mezirow, 2003). A leader might reflect on a previous challenge, gain new insights through dialog or coaching, and then re-evaluate that same experience through a more inclusive lens. Later, a new challenge may prompt them to revisit that same experience with fresh insight, illustrating the iterative nature of transformation. This dynamic process fosters continuous growth and adaptation, enabling individuals to respond more effectively to complex and contradictory situations. Ultimately, transformative learning fosters the ability to hold and integrate contradictory perspectives (Khan et al., 2025). This capacity is essential for developing a paradox mindset, as it enables leaders to move beyond either/or thinking and embrace complexity (Khan et al., 2025; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018).

Developing a Paradox Mindset

Research highlights that a paradox mindset, the ability to embrace and leverage contradictions, can be cultivated (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), yet there is limited understanding of the specific mechanisms for its development. Early research by Lewis and Dehler (2000) aimed to assist management educators in fostering paradox mindset, proposing three approaches: (i) expanding conceptual polarities, (ii) recognizing personal contradictions, and (iii) managing paradoxical predicaments. Building on this, Smith et al. (2012) identified three meta-skills (acceptance, differentiation, and integration) and six supporting skills for effectively addressing paradoxes (i.e., “adopting an abundance mentality,” “embracing paradoxical thinking,” “recognizing the distinct value of each domain,” “mindfully attending to distinctions between domains,” “developing trust, openness, and cultural sensitivity,” and “seeking synergies in decision making” (pp 468–473). This research informs our approach to exploring how we can support leaders in reframing tensions as opportunities for innovation and long-term impact.

Other studies offer insights into educational approaches for developing a paradox mindset among leaders (Audebrand et al., 2017; Fairhurst, 2019; Yin, 2022; Zheng et al., 2018). Audebrand et al. (2017) describe how pedagogical tools such as case studies, games, and simulations can be used to foster paradox mindset in learners. The authors encourage further research into different pedagogical approaches for developing paradox mindset and navigating paradoxes. Zheng et al. (2018) discuss conditions that help women leaders develop a paradox mindset, suggesting that changes in mental models can be achieved through exposure to successful role models and engaging in reflective learning that challenges assumptions. Their study reveals that by observing role models who integrate assertiveness and relational sensitivity, women leaders can envision themselves embodying both agency and communion. The role modeling not only enhances confidence but also makes the integration of competing leadership demands seem both attainable and effective.

Fairhurst (2019) distinguishes between paradox-based and dialectical thinking interventions, noting that many interventions oversimplify paradox. She advocates for enhancing reflexivity through “reflection-in-action,” involving real-time critical reflection that enables adaptive responses during change (Schön, 1987). Our study builds on this by embedding reflection-in-action into its methodology to surface latent tensions and foster reflexivity. In doing so, it operationalizes Fairhurst’s recommendation to engage with paradox as embedded, dynamic, and context-dependent, and aligns with a growing body of literature that conceptualizes mindset development as a “learning journey” (Jay, 2013, p. 150) that requires time and practical application (Bednarek et al., 2017; Knight & Paroutis, 2017).

Among the limited research offering pedagogical strategies for teaching paradox, Knight and Paroutis (2017) describe paradox mindset as a concept in management education that challenges how students think and shift their perspective. Paradox mindset is powerful because it can transform how learners see problems, create lasting changes in thinking, and connect ideas. According to Knight and Paroutis (2017), paradox pedagogy aligns with these four characteristics: (1) transforming learners’ perceptions through exposure to paradox, (2) being irreversible as adopting a paradox perspective fundamentally alters the learner’s framework, (3) integrating across disciplines to reveal connections, and (4) being bounded, recognizing that not all contradictions qualify as true paradoxes. True paradoxes involve tensions that are both opposing and connected, and they do not go away, but must be navigated over time. This makes them different from typical problems or trade-offs, which can often be resolved. To teach paradox mindset effectively, Knight and Paroutis (2017) suggest using pedagogical approaches promoting real-world context, engaging content, critical reflection, and active learning. More recently, Khan et al. (2025) address this gap by demonstrating how leaders can cultivate a paradox mindset, which in turn fosters transformative learning. Tjemkes et al. (2025) contribute further by offering a structured framework of multilevel learning interventions to cultivate a collective paradox mindset within organizations.

However, despite these contributions, there remains a notable gap in pedagogical approaches that combine conceptual understanding of leadership development literature with practical strategies for engaging learners in activities that will help developing their mindset. Existing research into paradox mindset development offers limited guidance on how to design learning interventions that actively support individuals in recognizing, reflecting on, and navigating paradoxes in real-world contexts.

Design Science Research Methodology

We adopt a Design Science Research (DSR) methodology as a guiding framework to develop a learning intervention for cultivating a paradox mindset. DSR is a problem-solving research methodology that can incorporate qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, depending on the research goals and the nature of the artifact being designed and evaluated. It emphasizes applied approaches aimed at discovery and real-world problem-solving (Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Hevner, 2008; Peffers et al., 2007). DSR is inherently problem-centered, prioritizing the creation of innovative artifacts to extend human and organizational capabilities and address specific real-world challenges (Hevner et al., 2008; Venable et al., 2016). In management education, such artifacts may include conceptual frameworks, pedagogical tools, or leadership development practices (Romme & Dimov, 2021). Our study positions the learning intervention as the artifact, designed to be both theoretically grounded and practically applicable through a process of user-centric design, iterative refinement, and contextual relevance.

We used the DSM process as a structuring lens to guide the iterative development and evaluation of a learning intervention. While grounded in DSR principles, the study focuses the intervention itself, including its theoretical rationale (transformative learning and paradox mindset), core pedagogical elements (learning pillars, workshops, and toolkit), and evaluation (scale, interviews, and unit coordinator feedback).

A DSR strategy is driven by a real-world problem faced by organizational actors, with the artifact (PMLI) designed to address this issue (Iivari, 2015). To maximize impact, we draw from established design science methods (Gregor & Hevner, 2013) and follow the six steps outlined by Peffers et al. (2007):

We commenced by identifying the problem, which was a need for more holistic pedagogical approach for developing paradox mindset in leaders, which will help them develop capacity to navigate complex and competing organizational challenges. Informed by existing knowledge in the fields of paradox and leadership education, we designed an artifact (intervention) which we labeled the Paradox Mindset Learning Intervention (PMLI). The PMLI is an integrated learning intervention designed to help leaders develop a paradox mindset. We then evaluated the PMLI’s effectiveness to determine its success in addressing the problem. Finally, we communicated the PMLI’s capabilities and solutions through relevant platforms, presenting a comprehensive solution to the initial problem.

Setting and Data Collection

The study was conducted at a leading Australian Business School. All students of an Advanced Global Strategy MBA unit were verbally invited to participate during the first in-person lecture and subsequently emailed participation information and consent forms via university channels. The unit is one of the final modules in the MBA program, designed to enhance participants’ strategic leadership capabilities in complex, fast-changing environments. Aligning with recent research into leadership development (e.g., Kim et al., 2023; Knight & Paroutis, 2017), the MBA served as an incubator for developing a paradox mindset. We refer to participants as “emerging leaders” based on their career stage and potential for increased strategic influence. While we use “students” when discussing their educational context, we refer to them as research “participants” when describing data collection and analysis.

The study initially involved 14 MBA students, each with at least 8 years of experience in professional, senior, or middle management roles (Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Participant demographics
Job level/position	No.
Professional	2
Middle management (e.g., Project Manager, Supervisor)	10
Senior management (e.g., General Manager)	2
	14
Workplace experience
8–10 years	3
10+ years	11
Total participants	14

These participants completed the initial paradox mindset measurement survey at Time 0 (see Figure 1). Of those, seven continued through to the final interview at Time 2, providing in-depth reflections on their experience with the intervention. To protect anonymity, each participant was assigned a unique code (e.g., P1 and P2), based on the chronological order of interviews. These codes are used throughout the findings to reference individual responses. The sample, though modest, aligns with DSR’s emphasis on iterative, context-rich engagement rather than large sample sizes. A diversity of industries was represented, including government, natural resources, energy, manufacturing, retail, and professional services, further supporting the relevance to real-world leadership development. Australian MBA students typically have diverse backgrounds, including early and mid-career professionals seeking advancement, recent graduates aiming for leadership roles, and international students seeking a global business perspective. Our cohort was skewed toward middle management, with an average of 2.1 years of leadership experience. Half were between 35 and 45 years old, and none were international students. Limitations related to sample size and scope are acknowledged in the Discussion section.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

PMLI design, demonstration, and evaluation (DSR Steps 3–5).

Data Collection and Analysis Strategy

Data were collected from multiple sources to ensure triangulation and depth of insight. Quantitative data was gathered via the Paradox Mindset Inventory (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), administered before (Time 0) and after (Time 1) the intervention to measure changes in paradox mindset. Descriptive statistics and mean values were used to assess significance. Qualitative data sources included guided reflections, classroom audio recordings, researcher observations, expert evaluation, and semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis and iterative coding were employed to identify recurring patterns, supported by NVivo software for interview data. Ethics approval was obtained, and all participants provided informed consent. Data were anonymized and pseudonyms used in reporting. Participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time. These processes are summarized in Appendix A and further discussed in Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PMLI (DSR Step 5). Figure 1 illustrates the research stages including designing, demonstrating and evaluating the PMLI.

Identification of the Problem (Step 1)

Following Peffers et al. (2007), our study commenced with an initial phase of problem identification, based on both theoretical and empirical observations. Research into paradox education highlights that existing leader development programs, including MBAs, have not sufficiently addressed the need for developing a paradox mindset in a holistic or systematic manner (Knight & Paroutis, 2017). Despite growing recognition of the mindset shift crucial for effective paradox management (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), traditional skill-focused approaches remain inadequate for fostering sustained mindset transformation (Kennedy et al., 2013). MBA programs have been slow to integrate transformative learning strategies to bridge this gap (Khan et al., 2025).

Discussions with the MBA Director and the Unit Coordinator of the Advanced Global Strategy unit underscored deficiencies in current methods aimed at preparing MBA students for real-world complexities. These discussions revealed that existing methods often fall short in preparing MBA students to grapple with real-world complexities and paradoxical tensions. This aligned with previous informal discussions with practitioners and industry partners (conducted while preparing for the study but not forming part of the formal research process) that highlighted the necessity for developing leaders who can adeptly navigate paradoxical tensions within organizational contexts.

Our review of paradox mindset and transformative learning literature, summarized in the preceding literature review section, along with the input from colleagues, students and industry contacts revealed a fragmented research landscape. Taken together, these inputs reveal that leaders aiming to cultivate their paradox mindset could benefit significantly from an integrated and transformative learning approach, an area currently receiving insufficient emphasis in research endeavors.

In response to these theoretical and practical imperatives, our research develops a more holistic learning intervention that embeds transformative learning to foster the development of a paradox mindset.

Defining Objectives of the Solution (Step 2)

The second step in the design science approach involves defining the objectives of the solution. Our solution aims to create an integrated learning intervention to cultivate a paradox mindset in leaders. The specific objectives are to: (a) enable leaders to recognize and identify paradoxes within their environments; (b) facilitate a deeper understanding of the nuances and interrelationships within and among paradoxes; (c) support leaders in adopting a paradox mindset to navigate complex and paradoxical tensions within their organizations. These objectives guided PMLI design and informed evaluation criteria in Step 5. Next, we describe the PMLI.

Designing the Paradox Mindset Learning Intervention (Step 3)

We began development of the learning intervention based on experiential learning principles (D. A. Kolb, 1984; A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005), aiming to support participants in applying theoretical knowledge to lifelike workplace situations. Drawing from the paradox literature which differentiates between identifying and responding to paradoxes and also from research on the value of strategic challenges in leader education (de Vries et al., 2020), we developed learning activities to support participants in the process of developing a paradox mindset. These were designed to help participants engage with and understand the complexities and dualities that often arise in organizational settings and encourage them to draw from their prior experiences of paradoxes. We paid attention to language and framing so as to allow learners to frame the complexities of their strategic challenges with heightened awareness of interconnected conflicting elements. We leveraged the research team’s insights into the challenges leaders face in understanding and identifying paradoxes, spending considerable time discussing examples of paradoxes at organizational, team, and individual levels.

To facilitate reader understanding, we now introduce and describe the PMLI, before proceeding to Step 4 – Demonstrating the PMLI. Specifically, we clarify that the PMLI consists of three core pedagogical elements: a set of learning pillars, three workshops, and a supporting toolkit, which are presented in Figure 1 and further discussed in Appendix B.

Practical Activities

Research consistently shows that practical, problem-centered approaches in education significantly enhance learning outcomes by bridging the gap between theory and practice (de Vries et al., 2020; Kosnik et al., 2013). Practical activities promote transformative learning through firsthand experiences that not only reinforce learning but also cultivate critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Yu & Zin, 2023). We designed practical activities to provide participants with direct experience in working through real world paradoxes. This included in-class case studies and examples of paradoxes from participants’ own workplaces. Examples of paradoxes included balancing short term financial targets with long term sustainability goals, or navigating conflicting stakeholder demands. One practical activity featured a financial services industry case study dealing with paradoxical tensions including innovation versus stability and cost control versus service quality. A key instruction, “Propose a strategy balancing a growth culture with a service culture,” required participants to apply tools, test integrative strategies, and adapt their approaches based on outcomes and peer feedback. For example, participants were encouraged to use SWOT analysis and cultural mapping to identify tensions between growth and service. These techniques led to participants then proposing a range of blended strategies, such as cross-training service teams for growth initiatives. Participants also reported responding to peer critiques, for example, that highlighted gaps in customer experience alignment. This applied approach helped participants develop a deeper understanding of paradoxes and build practical skills to embed paradox mindset into their everyday decision-making.

Critical Reflection

Developing a paradox mindset requires reconciling contradictory ideas, a process facilitated through reflective practices. Research highlights the role of reflection in enhancing self-awareness, metacognition, and deeper understanding of complex issues (Daudelin, 1996; Owens et al., 2022; Padmanabha, 2020). For many, scaffolding is essential to the reflective process (Wheeley et al., 2022). The PMLI integrated structured reflection exercises and online journaling to enable participants to engage deeply with paradoxes encountered in leadership contexts. Activities were designed to challenge assumptions, surface tensions, reconsider perspectives, and prompt participants to refine their approaches to navigating paradoxical situations (de Vries et al., 2020; Owens et al., 2022).

To set the tone for reflective inquiry and paradox mindset development, each session began with a short, contextually-relevant prompt that introduced a paradoxical tension, (such as balancing innovation with stability or autonomy with control). Prompts such as “Which paradox mindset strategies learned in the unit did you use, and how useful were they?” and “What are you learning about navigating paradox?” encouraged participants to explore the nuances of their thinking and articulate evolving insights. These reflective questions supported deeper engagement with complexity and helped participants internalize adaptive strategies for navigating contradiction.

Socratic Dialog

Socratic dialog enhances cognitive flexibility and the ability to navigate contradictory viewpoints with agility (Getachew, 2024). It fosters reflective, independent, and creative leadership (Friesen & Stephens, 2016; Getachew, 2024; Katsara & De Witte, 2019). Our aim was to incorporate Socratic dialog and reflective conversations into the PMLI to help participants strengthen their creativity and critical thinking. Participants engaged in a process of questioning and challenging ideas, promoting open-ended inquiry and thoughtful dialog.

We structured sessions to encourage participants to critically examine assumptions, probe deeper into contradictory perspectives, and explore the nuances of paradoxical situations. Questions were grouped into three clusters: clarifying concepts (e.g., “What do stability and innovation look like as future outcomes for this organization?”), probing evidence (e.g., “Where have we seen demonstrated the successful navigation between centralized control and decentralized autonomy, and what lessons can we draw from them?”), and exploring implications or consequences (e.g. “What are the potential consequences of prioritizing short-term efficiency over long-term adaptability in our decision-making processes, and how can we mitigate these risks?”; Stoddard & O’Dell, 2016).

We adopted peer dialog and coaching feedback, techniques known to deepen inquiry, surface cognitive dissonance and discomfort with ambiguity and to stimulate adaptive learning and growth (Heifetz et al., 2009). Facilitators modeled reflective practice and created a psychologically safe environment, encouraging intellectual risk-taking and framing disagreement as a learning opportunity. This atmosphere supported diverse perspectives and collective inquiry, helping quieter participants grow more confident and engaged (Getachew, 2024). Facilitation techniques included inviting quieter participants by using open-ended prompts like “What are your thoughts on this?” and offering small-group breakouts in addition to plenary discussions to build confidence. Psychological safety was reinforced through affirming contributions (“That’s an interesting perspective”) and normalizing mistakes as part of learning. Ground rules co-developed with participants, such as “listen to understand, not to respond,” further reinforced respectful dialog and collective sense-making. Ultimately, Socratic dialog bridged individual reflection and collaborative problem-solving, helping participants develop a mindset attuned to complexity and contradiction.

Group Work

Research suggests that group work can trigger transformative learning and helps internalize change processes (Kets de Vries & Korotov, 2007; Z. Liu et al., 2021; Mezirow, 1997). Collaborative learning was central to the intervention’s design. Participants were encouraged to work together to identify, diagnose, and navigate paradoxes in their own organizational contexts. Group activities included paradox identification sessions, peer coaching scenarios, and case study discussions. The groupwork fostered a supportive and inclusive learning environment where participants could experiment with different approaches, refine their strategies, and develop a more nuanced understanding of paradoxical situations. Participants also learned to leverage collective intelligence, navigate ambiguity, and harness the strengths of diverse viewpoints to address complex challenges effectively.

Participant reactions informed refinements to tools and facilitation strategies. Initial discomfort with ambiguity, or confusion or frustration with the abstract nature of paradox concepts, was documented through post-session interviews, coaching debriefs, and facilitator observation notes. This later helped inform refinements to tool instructions, case framing, and facilitation techniques in future iterations.

Demonstrating the PMLI (Step 4)

To demonstrate the practical applicability and effectiveness of the PMLI, we introduced it to group of emerging leaders undertaking an MBA. Following Peffers et al. (2018), we sought to ensure the learning intervention worked as intended, and to refine and improve it before wider deployment. Each workshop combined theory with practice, encouraging participants to engage actively with the material, apply it to their own leadership contexts, and reflect on the PMLI’s usefulness. Toolkit components were introduced progressively and applied both within the classroom and in participants’ professional settings. This demonstration phase enabled observation of participant engagement and provided empirical input for formal evaluation.

Empirical Validation

To ensure the PMLI was designed correctly and aligned with its educational objectives we implemented it through a two-step process focused on empirical validation. The purpose was to assess whether the intervention could achieve its intended learning outcomes and adhere to established educational principles.

First, we presented the proposed approach to the Unit Coordinator of the MBA Advanced Global Strategy Unit, an experienced professor in management strategy and paradox research. The coordinator provided targeted feedback that led to refinements in both content structure and terminology. For example, academic definitions were replaced with practical comparisons between dilemmas and paradoxes, and language was simplified to improve clarity and accessibility for executive learners. Specific adjustments included changing “metacognitive reflection” to “thinking about how you learn best, and “navigating paradoxical tensions” to “handling situations where you need to balance two opposing priorities,” and “exploring the dualities inherent in leadership practice” to “looking at both sides of a leadership challenge.” Another shift involved refining a vague reflective prompt originally phrased as “Reflect on a paradox you have encountered” to a more targeted and actionable question: “Describe a time when you had to balance competing stakeholder demands and explain how you navigated the tension using a paradox mindset.” This change led to more focused responses and clearer evidence of applied learning in participant reflections. We also revised content to include more applied examples and interactive discussions.

Participant reactions were collected at each workshop to identify areas for improvement. Some participants reported difficulty with the complexity of some content and terminology, noting that certain concepts felt overly abstract or difficult to apply. Some participants requested more practical examples and clearer explanations. Several commented on the pace of sessions, reporting that some topics felt rushed while others were dense. This feedback was systematically documented by the researcher-facilitators through independent discussion notes and later corroborated through shared reflection and observational records.

Next, we engaged subject matter experts (SMEs; through workshops, structured interviews, and emails) to advise on the best conditions for fostering learning among emerging leaders. SMEs included a global leader in paradox mindset, editors of a leading management education journal, and an experienced Australian Professor of Leadership. SMEs consistently emphasized the need for an interactive environment that promotes open discussions, small group activities, peer-to-peer learning, collaboration, critical thinking, and exposure to diverse perspectives. Based on their recommendations, the workshops were redesigned to reduce theoretical density, focus on fewer core concepts, and incorporate real-world examples and tools that supported practical application. Taken together, these adjustments aimed to enhance learner engagement, support knowledge transfer, and align with adult learning principles.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the PMLI (Step 5)

The next step was evaluating the solution to determine whether the PMLI met project objectives (Peffers et al., 2007) by assessing its performance and impact in a real-world setting. This involved collecting and analyzing data on outcomes, engagement, and user satisfaction from four sources:

Communicating the PMLI (Step 6)

Our strategy for documenting and communicating the results of the PMLI involves both academic and practitioner-facing channels. We have shared our work with academic colleagues through research workshops and seminars. Additionally, we submitted our work to a leading management conference, where we have been invited to present our pedagogical process and findings. This paper is another research output from the study. We have also shared our research findings via practitioner channels via skill-building workshops with various industry practitioners.

Theoretical Contributions

There is a noticeable scarcity of theoretical and conceptual guidance on cultivating a paradox mindset among emerging leaders. Our study makes three theoretical contributions to the literature.

The primary contribution of this study is the design and evaluation of the PLMI, a novel integrated educational approach that demonstrates how a paradox mindset can be deliberately and systematically developed through a structured leadership education intervention. This advances paradox education literature (Khan et al., 2025, Knight & Paroutis, 2017) by operationalizing a learning intervention aimed at developing a paradox mindset in emerging leaders. The intervention is rooted in experiential learning principles and incorporates practical activities, critical reflection, Socratic dialog, and group work. It extends previous studies on facilitating effective responses to organizational paradox (Knight & Paroutis, 2017; Lewis & Dehler, 2000; Smith et al., 2012). To date, no validated approach has been established for fostering a leader’s paradox mindset, an essential capability for moving from “either/or” to “both/and” thinking. While previous research has highlighted the benefits of a paradox mindset (e.g., Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), our contribution lies in detailing how such a mindset can be developed intentionally. The PMLI integrates structured reflection, experiential learning, and cognitive reframing to help learners progress beyond conceptual understanding toward the practical ability to identify and navigate paradoxes with confidence.

Second, we introduce a theoretically grounded and empirically evaluated artifact (PMLI) that serves as a robust foundation for further research. Through evaluating the intervention amongst MBA user-learners working across various industries and one expert, we have demonstrated its adaptability across diverse organizational context of emerging leaders. This contribution strengthens the leadership learning and development literature, which has historically underexplored innovative pedagogies. While many educational programs emphasize principles through case studies (Z. Liu et al., 2021), traditional lecture-based teaching often presents leadership challenges as discrete problems with singular solutions. Case-based methods similarly position learners as detached analysts rather than participants navigating tensions in real time. In contrast, the PMLI challenges learners by exposing them to real world, lived paradoxes, which are often complex and messy. This experiential approach fosters cognitive complexity and emotional resilience, offering a substantive pedagogical alternative to conventional management education. In addition, the study contributes design insights regarding the sequencing of experiential engagement, structured reflection, dialogic learning, and practical tools in supporting integrative reasoning. These insights offer guidance for educators seeking to foster both/and thinking in complex leadership contexts.

Third, our study bridges theory and practice by offering a user-centric intervention grounded in Design Science Research. Drawing on paradox and transformative learning literatures, the PMLI was developed with the “user” (emerging leader) in mind. Using DSR we incorporated multiple opportunities for feedback in designing and evaluating the learning intervention. Practices such as Socratic questioning and guided reflection proved especially effective in helping participants hold competing demands in constructive tension – an approach often overlooked in directive teaching models. Moreover, our use of DSR contributes to establishing a validated framework for future research focused on practical, scalable leadership solutions.

Finally, our study opens a focused agenda for future research. Scholars could examine how context-specific organizational settings such as complex projects, multidisciplinary teams, high risk or safety critical environments shape paradox mindset development. Further studies could also explore how individuals’ preferences and abilities such as ambiguity tolerance, openness to experience, or conflict avoidance might affect their development of paradox mindset.

Practical Contributions

Our study contributes significantly to the development of paradox mindset in emerging leaders, enhancing their capacity to navigate complex business challenges characterized by contradictory demands. It also offers practical guidance for embedding a paradox mindset into leadership education and organizational learning programs.

First, the PMLI provides a practical framework for cultivating a paradox mindset. This approach promotes deep understanding and application of paradox mindset principles across diverse organizational scenarios. It fosters a holistic perspective through four integrated learning pillars: individual reflection, practical activities, Socratic dialog, and group work. By engaging with these pillars, leaders gain a versatile mindset capable of synthesizing diverse perspectives, avoiding fragmented approaches, and generating innovative solutions in the face of paradoxes and complexity.

Second, we introduce a validated developmental intervention endorsed by practitioners, including emerging leaders. Grounded in design science methodology, the PMLI offers adaptability to accommodate individual and contextual factors crucial for nurturing paradox mindset development across diverse settings, through a modular, developmentally sequenced learning design that allows participants to engage at varying levels of readiness and apply the intervention across different educational and organizational contexts. This flexibility enables customization to meet specific user needs and facilitates scalability across industry and educational institutions, accommodating varying learning styles and paces. Within management education specifically, this adaptability supports the integration of the PMLI into leadership courses, capstone subjects, and program-level curricula, allowing paradox mindset development to be scaffolded through reflective assessments, experiential classroom activities, facilitated dialog, and collaborative group work across the duration of a course or program.

For management educators, the PMLI offers a compelling alternative to pedagogical models that prioritize conceptual clarity over developmental depth. By positioning paradoxical tensions as catalysts for learning, the PMLI encourages a shift from content-heavy instruction toward learning architectures that cultivate adaptive, reflective, and emotionally grounded leaders. This has implications for curriculum design, faculty development, and institutional learning cultures.

To enhance the practical implications of our findings, we recommend that organizations implement regular reflective practice sessions or workshops centered around developing a paradox mindset. These sessions could include structured dialogs on real-world tensions and guided reflections to build self-awareness and a both/and response. Additionally, embedding paradox mindset principles into leadership development programs and performance reviews may help institutionalize a culture that embraces complexity and fosters innovation. We also suggest encouraging cross-functional teaming to expose leaders to diverse perspectives and competing priorities, helping them practice navigating paradoxes in real-world contexts.

In summary, our research equips leadership development practitioners with a transformative tool to enhance their practices, empowering leaders to effectively address the complexities and contradictions inherent in today’s business environments.