Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Paradox

The notion of paradox is defined by Mark Sainsbury as an unacceptable conclusion that is derived by apparently acceptable reasoning, based on apparently acceptable premises. Paradox refers to inconsistency, opposition, and tension. The term is used in organization studies to refer to the simultaneous presence of contradictory, even mutually exclusive elements (e.g., centralization and decentralization, innovation and routine). After a period of domination by such notions as rationality and systematization, organization studies became a fertile territory for the exploration of paradox. Organizations have been characterized as being paradoxical in many senses, with managers facing the need to tackle the challenges posed by their intrinsically contradictory nature. This seems to be equally valid across a wide range of organizations, from relatively simple string quartets dealing with the tension between the first and second violinist, to hugely complex aircraft carriers balancing extreme rigor with flexible structuring.

Conceptual Overview

There are three major perspectives with regard to paradoxes. One argues that paradoxes, by their very nature, cannot be solved (acceptance), a second argues that they can be solved (confrontation), and a third argues that paradoxes should be sustained but not solved (relation).

Acceptance of Paradox

One argument states that paradoxes are part of organizational life and that they are unsolvable—something to be sustained or endured, but not tackled. Such paradoxes may appear in three different ways. First, the two opposite poles of a paradox may be present simultaneously. Those favoring this approach argue that this type of tension is beyond the power of management and that little more can be done beyond acknowledging its presence. Deliberate and emergent strategies often unfold together, resulting in a realized strategy not predictable at the beginning. They use this result to assert that there are not many options to handle this tension other than to accept it and learn from it in future planning.

Second, the two poles of a paradox may operate at different levels in the organization. A given dynamic may be true about individual behavior while the opposite may be true at the organizational level. Again, there is not much to say about what managers can do to handle this type of tension. They can do little more that recognize it and prepare for it. This approach states that whereas individual behavior can be managed, either via normative or rational control, the organization as a whole is essentially an emergent system, with managers being relatively powerless to control it.

Finally, the two poles of a paradox may follow each other at different points in time—thesis follows antithesis in a never-ending succession where a given dynamic is followed by its opposite, to emerge again later on. Managers are urged to prepare for this succession of ups and downs. These dynamics are inherent to organizational evolution, and there is little that can be done to help or hinder them. The evolutionrevolution model of organizational growth, as described by Larry Greiner, provides an illustration of this process. Greiner showed how stages of stability are followed by revolutionary change that eventually crystallizes into a new equilibrium that contains the seeds of its own destruction.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution