The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox Editors: W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski & A. Langley Oxford: Oxford University Press
AD FONTES – PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF PARADOX RESEARCH Chapter 1 pp. 27-47
JONATHAN SCHAD Geneva School of Economics and Management University of Geneva 40 Blvd. Pont-d’Arve 1205 Geneva, Switzerland Phone +41 22 379 99 20
[email protected]
Introduction Paradoxes inspire. These puzzles, inconsistencies, and impossibilities have attracted the greatest minds in history. They are a central theme in Bach’s music, Escher’s lithographs, and even in the earliest human writings, such as Eastern teachings and the Judeo-Christian Bible (Capra 1975; Hofstadter 1979; Smith and Lewis 2011). Paradoxes provoke thought, spark curiosity, and can be a source of novelty. In this context, philosophy has contributed the most profound treatises. These writings span hundreds of years. They offer rich roots in the domains of logic, language, and dialectics, but they have also informed many other fields from economics and psychology to the natural sciences. Furthermore, these philosophical foundations have influenced management research, advancing our understanding of organizational tensions. In traditional management research, tensions are often treated as trade-offs or dilemmas. Framing a tension as a paradox ― a “persistent contradiction between interdependent elements” (Schad et al. 2016: 10) ― opens a whole new world to debate and responds to these opposing forces. Using a paradox lens goes beyond an either/or logic (Smith and Lewis 2011) and enables scholars to detect the synergistic potential of a tension’s elements (Farjoun 2010) to guide new ways of theorizing (Poole and Van de Ven 1989). By applying this lens, scholars have advanced our understanding of tensions in a variety of research fields, such as hybrid organizations (Jay 2013), organization design (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008), and strategy practices (Smets et al. 2015). The foundational writings on paradox in management build explicitly on the rich intellectual heritage that philosophy offers (i.e., Lewis 2000; Poole and Van de Ven 1989; Quinn and Cameron 1988; Smith and Berg 1987). These roots have been used in three ways: to define paradox (Lewis 2000; Smith and Berg 1987), to illustrate different response strategies to paradoxes (Van de Ven and Poole 1988), and to distinguish between different types of paradoxes (Poole and Van de Ven 1989). All these insights helped initial theory building in management research. By shifting the focus to more abstract aspects of organizational tensions, such as their origin, the relation between oppositional elements, and their dynamic evolution, paradox research is now moving toward a meta-theoretical perspective that applies to a variety of phenomena and contexts (Lewis and Smith 2014). This reflects the situation in philosophy when paradox is not an independent stream, but is widely discussed across different traditions.
2
Furthermore, paradox in management research serves as a “theorizing tool” that combines multiple paradigms (Lewis and Smith 2014). This development implies that philosophy’s role is changing: While the integration of philosophical insights was necessary in the early years of theory building (Lewis 2000), the emergent meta-theoretical approach builds on the multiplicity of philosophical roots to gain new insights (Schad et al. 2016). Since a central aim of paradox research is to understand how a tension’s elements relate to one another (Smith and Lewis 2011), understanding the roots is critical. Paradox scholars draw increasingly on philosophy (e.g., Chae and Bloodgood 2006; Chen 2008; Lado et al. 2006; Li 2014a), but research has thus far mostly focused on single aspects. This approach can lead to incomplete insights. For instance, contrasting Eastern and Western traditions, such as the logics of integration and separation, ignores the similarities we find in the two traditions (Li 2014b). Moreover, the field risks singling out the “right” philosophical sources and possibly imposing a best-fit approach (Ford and Ford 1994). This potential polarization might reproduce the tensions between the different intellectual roots and, at worst, create new “paradigm wars.” Understanding the philosophical paradigms’ respective aspects and contributions can help advance an integrative meta-theory by clarifying individual contributions and facilitating insights across paradigms. Nevertheless, the literature lacks a systematic overview of the philosophical traditions and their links to different elements of paradox research in management. To fill this gap, I return to the sources (“ad fontes”): The philosophical roots. Ad fontes was a normative principle of Renaissance humanism. Its proponents warned scholars to take the sources of thought seriously and learn from them, which subsequently had a significant influence on school and university education (Howard 2006). By going back to the sources, this chapter’s aim is to offer a concise overview and to serve as a guide for future research. To avoid “paradigm wars,” I present the philosophical foundations as lenses. This approach serves a dual purpose: On the one hand, it allows selecting the lens that fits best in order to further explore the elements of a paradox meta-theory. On the other hand, lenses can enable fruitful cross-fertilization in a multi-paradigmatic approach. To this end, the chapter is organized in the following way: I start by introducing the philosophical roots as lenses, each of which provides different insights into paradox. Thereafter, I link these lenses to elements of a paradox meta-theory, providing a systematic overview. I clarify each element’s links to the philosophical foundations and highlight avenues for future research.
3
Philosophical Foundations Paradoxes are central to a variety of philosophical traditions, each with different emphases and uses. For instance, Plato uses the term paradox to state that something was against (para) popular opinion (doxa). He argues that action should follow rational examination rather than feeling. Other traditions, such as logics, use the term in a much narrower, more formalized way. This section introduces the key aspects of six philosophical lenses dealing with paradoxes and persistent tensions: logic, Eastern philosophy, dialectics, existentialism, philosophy of language, and political philosophy. 1
Logic Logic is primarily concerned with (formal) reasoning. The field had a strong impact on our current understanding of paradoxes. In logical systems, paradoxes are rare, which is why their implications are taken seriously. The roots date back to pre-Socratic thinkers. Zeno of Ela was a pioneer of working with logical puzzles. He illustrated a famous theoretical puzzle in his “racetrack paradox” by arguing that a runner starting after his opponent will never be able to overtake the opponent, no matter how fast he runs, because by the time this runner reaches his opponent’s point, the latter will have moved on (Hughes and Brecht 1976). Zeno’s reasoning about the infinite divisibility of time and space led to the conclusion that motion was ultimately impossible ― since, prior to motion, an infinite number of other motions needs to be performed. This paradox provided great insights into the role of time and space in paradoxes. Although Zeno’s premises of time and space were individually sound, the conclusion (i.e., the impossibility of motion) seems absurd. Aristotle was one of the first to take Zeno’s paradoxes seriously instead of treating them as simple riddles (Sainsbury 2009). By developing a system of logical reasoning (syllogism), Aristotle is often considered the founder of formal logic (Rescher 2001). According to Aristotle, inconsistencies can be avoided by examining the premises: While the racetrack paradox’s conclusion is correct, the premises also need to be correct. Aristotle introduced the “law of non-contradiction” to argue that contradictory premises cannot both be true (Priest 1995). This system of logical reasoning
1
The six lenses are not philosophical traditions in the strict sense. Some lenses group several areas and traditions in philosophy. The lenses’ definitions are therefore intentionally broad.
4
influenced modern scientific inquiry, which treats contradictions as systemic anomalies. Consequently, logicians prefer to solve paradoxes. Contrary to this view, Kant (1998) presents four antinomies in his Critique of Pure Reason. An antinomy is a pair of logically sound arguments leading to contradictory conclusions. According to Kant, one cannot choose one or the other side in such a case, since both arguments are based on sound premises. He thus points to the limits of science and pure reason. By using exclusively theoretical or empirical arguments, it is impossible to decide in favor of one side of the antinomy, because neither of them provides all the insights. Kant thus proposes a transcendental approach that engages both arguments. His antinomies present opposing premises that cannot be resolved. Another historical root in logic is Epimenides’s liar paradox: A person who maintains that “I am lying” cannot be telling the truth. The statement is only correct if the person is not lying. Conversely, if the person is lying, the statement cannot be true. Either way, something is always false. The liar paradox disrupts the standard classification of true and false statements, because it is simultaneously true and false. Some logical contradictions can therefore be both true and false at the same time (Sorensen 2003). Modern logicians, such as Russell, Whitehead, and Gödel, were inspired by Epimenides’s paradox. By translating this ancient paradox into mathematical terms, Gödel produced his “incompleteness theorem.” In this theorem, Gödel states that some statements in a system must be true, but cannot be proved to be true. He proves that we cannot prove everything (Hofstadter 1979). Questioning the basic assumptions of logical systems can lead to an infinite regress, which underscores the persistence of paradoxes.
Eastern Philosophy Eastern philosophy is rich in paradoxes. In Eastern thought, paradox is the norm rather than the exception. I briefly present three main streams of Eastern philosophy, although this tradition admittedly goes far beyond the points mentioned here. 2 My focus is on philosophical streams that originated in the “Axial Age” (800–200 B.C.) (Jaspers 1953): Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism. These three teachings encompass religious and ethical systems 2
I am well aware that it is difficult to take Eastern philosophy into account as an entity. The insights provided here highlight the different emphases and how these traditions are generally perceived.
5
concerned with the conduct of life, as well as with the relation between the individual/particular and the whole/universal. Taoism regards opposition as empowering. In his text Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu explains that there is an underlying harmony between opposites guided by the tao. While ‘tao’ signifies path, Lao Tsu refers to it as the origin of all being (Fung [1948] 1966). This holistic view encompasses a purposeful acceptance of the world. Taoism is thus the way of life. It is associated with the yin and yang symbol. The black and white parts of the yin and yang symbolize interdependent opposites: The black surface contains a white dot and vice versa (Morgan 1986). Their relation is not static, but one part can only grow by diminishing the other. Yin and yang thus represent “correlative thinking” that simultaneously carves out similarities and distinctiveness (Graham 1986). As such, Taoism embraces opposites and indicates their underlying wholeness. While Taoism is more concerned with nature and its origins, Confucianism is concerned with social organization and individual conduct. Confucianism seeks a life in harmony. One of the core ideas is presented in Confucius’s four books: “The doctrine of the mean” implies that moral conduct lies in a balanced, middle way by following the “Golden Rule” to do only things to others that one finds desirable oneself (Confucius 1977). As such, Confucianism comes very close to Aristotelian ethics (Hamburger 1959). Finally, Buddhism also promotes the middle way. According to Buddha, suffering marks human life. The constant struggle with flux and stability characterizes this state of suffering. Transcending this state means changing one’s perception to reach “nirvana” ― a state of individual liberation. Changing one’s perception is complemented by one’s moral behavior, which can be identified by aiming at the middle way between two extremes (Capra 1975). Confucianism and Buddhism both emphasize the role of balancing extremes.
Dialectics The term “dialectic” has a long tradition. It is found in the Socratic dialogues, and Aristotle also referred to a logical argument’s structure as dialectic (Stokes 1986). Kant uses the notions of thesis and anti-thesis to describe the two contradictory arguments in his antinomies (Kant 1998). Our contemporary understanding of dialectics mostly refers to the theoretical works of Hegel, Marx, and Engels. In general, dialectics describes a triadic progression from
6
the tension between a thesis and an antithesis to their resolution through synthesis (Sorensen 2003). Hegel’s dialectics accept contradictions in formal logic. He takes an idealistic perspective and views dialectics as a path toward greater truth ― or “the absolute idea” (Hegel [1812] 1998). Hegel regards dialectics as a dynamic process of contradictions’ evolution – contradiction is the source of movement and progress. Development is a dialectical process during which a thesis is confronted with an antithesis, whose contradiction leads to their synthesis. The contradiction is not resolved, since the synthesis contains elements of truth from both sides of the contradiction. Dialectics is thus a process of becoming, because each side of a contradiction contains parts of a greater, underlying whole. Eventually, the synthesis forms a new thesis, which is in turn confronted with a new antithesis (Sorensen 2003). Hegel’s dialectics is holistic and teleological, because it progresses toward a greater truth (Cunha et al. 2002). Marx explicitly refers to Hegel in the development of his dialectics. While the basic triadic structure of the argument ― thesis, antithesis, synthesis ― is similar, Marx’s writings differ from Hegel’s. Whereas Hegel regards dialectics as rooted in logics, Marx perceives it as rooted in the material world. He uses dialectics as a method to identify the main contradictions in a society and to trace their evolutions’ processes (Russell [1945] 2004). Engels (1946) summarizes the main principles underlying Marx’s thought and formulates the principles of materialist dialectics. In particular, Engels stresses the deterministic evolution of societal change through contradictions and their synthesis, but also emphasizes a potentially destructive shift if one side is over-emphasized (Morgan 1986).
Existentialism Existentialists place the individual at the center of their research to account for human life’s different struggles. Rescher (2001) summarizes the core “existential paradox” as follows: “Birth […] is automatically the start of an unavoidable transit towards death” (120). The existentialist tradition’s authors contribute to the issues of human existence from this awareness. Existentialism is not (only) pessimistic, but is a movement in reaction to predominant determinism (Joullié 2016).
7
Kierkegaard, one of the founding fathers of existentialism, deals primarily with death and the meaning of life. In his book Either/Or, Kierkegaard refers to the incompatibilities of life. He formulates a paradox between the finite and infinite in human life: While the finite refers to restricting oneself (e.g., following moral norms), the infinite refers to mobilizing oneself (e.g., exploring one’s freedom). Both orientations are contradicting activities, but interdependent, and need to be balanced throughout life (Schneider 1990). Kierkegaard also conceived the idea of the ‘dizziness of freedom’: Anxiety or angst is not rooted in fearing evil, but in the possibilities freedom offers (Kierkegaard [1844] 1981). While humans are "condemned to be free" (Sartre [1943] 1992: 623), the positive side is that this freedom enables them to be author of their lives. Camus serves as another example of an existentialist author. In his book The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus ([1942] 1955) deals with the “absurd”: Tensions, or paradoxes, arise from humans’ quest to find an answer to the meaning of life, although they find this an impossible task. Human nature is structured in such a way that it seeks to reach unity and the absolute, but the human condition’s limitations do not allow this. According to Camus, recognizing and acknowledging this absurd state are the only defensible options. Kierkegaard and Camus both introduce us to the paradoxicality of human existence and individual responses to it.
Philosophy of Language Here, philosophy of language is used as a lens to illustrate the role of language in paradox. While drawing on the traditions of philosophy of language, I also include rhetorical paradoxes. Logical and rhetorical paradoxes are often distinguished from each other, but they frequently stem from language and subsequently inspire logical analysis (Rescher 2001). The liar paradox (“I am lying”) is also an example of a rhetorical paradox (Ford and Backoff 1988). This statement causes a “strange loop” (Hofstadter 1979). Similarly, Russell’s barber paradox asks who shaves the only barber in a village if the barber shaves all “villagers who do not shave themselves” (Rescher 2001: 143). If he shaves himself, the statement that the barber shaves all but those who shave themselves, is no longer true. Such paradoxes are contradictory and self-referential statements leading to a vicious circle (Smith and Berg 1987). Any proposed solution to either side simply reproduces the problem (Priest 1995).
8
Subsequently, some philosophers examined the understanding of language (Priest 1995). Wittgenstein is one of the most prominent proponents of the philosophy of language and deals with the structure of language and its meaning. In his treatise Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein ([1922] 1995) claims that the limits of thought are primarily the limits of language. Language can only be understood to the extent that it can be visualized in reality. This is how ideas are communicated ― through pictures and analogies. The wrong use of pictures in language can be the root of paradoxes (Sorensen 2003). Wittgenstein regards paradoxes as ‘something surprising,’ something that can only be understood if contextualized (Wittgenstein 1956). In his later works, Wittgenstein ([1953] 1971) describes language as a tool and words as instruments. He uses “language games” to convey that words and expressions are embedded in practice.
Political Philosophy Political philosophy is fraught with persistent tensions and contradictions. It is closely linked to ethics, and both fields deal with normative questions. Political philosophy examines questions on how a society can best be organized. Conversely, ethics concerns the systematic examination of values and norms. Political philosophy is rich in dealing with tensions characterized by the contradictory, yet essential, elements of a social system. The core topics include individual freedom, fairness, legal rules, and responsibility. Philosophers elaborate on the ideal relationship between the individual and the society, discussing this mostly in terms of social contract theory. Long discussions have been held on the idea that individual freedom can only be reached by giving away some freedom (Locke [1689] 1988), and on the actual extent of power in a state (Hobbes [1651] 1981). Political philosophy thus deals with multiple systemic tensions. Furthermore, according to Rousseau ([1762] 1987), a society can only work if its citizens can distance themselves from their self-interest and take a different stance: They are simultaneously citizens (guided by the common interest) and “bourgeois” (guided by their individual interests). Individuals thus have multiple roles that can be in conflict with one another. Taking individual preferences as a starting point, political theorists also describe persistent contradictions when individual preferences are aggregated to the collective level (Arrow 1951).
9
In ethics, there are two main opposing approaches to assessing an action’s morality. On the one hand, deontologists emphasize that adherence to a specific rule — a rule that applies in any given context — determines the morality of an action. This group of philosophers is primarily linked to Kant’s writings (Kant [1785] 1997). On the other hand, consequentialists regard a moral action as determined by its consequences. The utilitarian Bentham ([1789] 1907) is the most important defender of this ‘outcome’-oriented approach. The main tensions in ethics stem from these incompatible approaches. Several attempts have been made to reconcile these different views. Mill (1863), for example, distinguishes between the different qualities of desired ends (or “outcomes”), while Rawls (1971) states that fairness is rooted in the process that produces general rules.
10
Philosophical Aspects in Management Research The previous section dealt with paradox thought in philosophy. In management and organization theory, paradox research uses similar ideas, often without referring to the philosophical foundations. In this section, I clarify the links and show that multiple philosophical lenses are applicable at different levels of analysis. Some philosophical approaches are thus more appropriate for some managerial challenges, but add little to others. Neglecting the breadth of philosophical roots can lead to partial, or even erroneous, applications ― for instance, paradox approaches that logic suggests do not fit with the way existentialism conceptualizes them. While the logical paradoxes arise from contradictory premises, existentialism takes an individual-level perspective and deal with the experience of paradoxes. I propose a systematic overview to take stock of the paradox literature in management and to facilitate future research with philosophical foundations. I link the identified aspects from philosophy to core paradox meta-theory elements as identified in prior research (Lewis and Smith 2014; Schad et al. 2016; Smith and Lewis 2011). These elements can be categorized into four groups, each representing a key debate in paradox research: origin, concept, responses, and development. Origin refers to the nature of paradoxes. Are they socially constructed or inherent? Concept helps us define what a paradox is. How are the elements of a tension related to defining paradox? Responses illustrate defensive reactions and coping strategies with regard to paradoxes. How are paradoxes dealt with? Finally, development denotes movement over time. How do paradoxes evolve over time? Table 1.1 shows the connections between elements of a paradox meta-theory and aspects from philosophy along the four identified groups. Together, these four groups can also be interpreted as a structured process of thinking about paradox: Researchers first need to be clear about the roots of paradoxical tensions and how they arise, or become salient. Subsequently, the central question is whether a tension truly forms a paradox. When paradoxes are identified, the research interest shifts to identifying potential approaches in order to address them. Finally, since paradoxes are dynamic, their development and recursiveness over time need to be taken into consideration. I will next discuss each of the four debates with respect to how aspects from philosophy are reflected in the different elements of a paradox meta-theory in management science. In addition, I will indicate areas for future research.
11
Table 1.1: Elements of a paradox meta-theory and aspects from philosophy
Origin
Debate
Elements Inherent tensions
Social construction
Concept
Contradiction
Interdependence
Persistence
Defensive responses
Development
Responses
Strategic responses
Reinforcing cycles Process dynamics
Aspects from Philosophy Systemic tensions Political Philosophy: A social contract implies tensions between the individual and the society (Hobbes; Locke). Multiple roles Political Philosophy: Citizens are simultaneously guided by common and individual interest (Rousseau). Human life is paradoxical Eastern Philosophy: Human life is marked by the constant struggle with flux and stability (Buddhism). Existentialism: The finite and infinite in human life require restricting and mobilizing oneself (Kierkegaard). Human condition Existentialism: Humans try to find an answer to the meaning of life, although they find this to be an impossible task (Camus). Incompatible values Political Philosophy: In ethics, the morality of an action can be assessed by adherence to a specific rule (deontologists; e.g., Kant) or its outcomes (consequentialists; e.g., Bentham). Use of language Philosophy of Language: Ideas are communicated through pictures and analogies; the use of pictures in language is embedded in practices and can be the root of paradoxes (Wittgenstein). Role of time and space Logic: Assumptions on time and space can lead to a contradiction (Zeno). Law of non-contradiction Logic: Contradictory premises cannot both be true (Aristotle). Opposing premises Logic: Antinomies are pairs of logically sound arguments leading to a contradictory conclusion, which cannot be resolved (Kant). Holism Dialectics: Each side of a contradiction contains parts of a greater whole (Hegel). Eastern philosophy: Opposites are part of an underlying wholeness (Taoism). Self-referential Philosophy of Language: Statements can be true and false at the same time (Russell). Logic: Some statements in a system cannot be proved (Gödel). Suffering Eastern Philosophy: Human life is marked by suffering from a paradoxical state (Buddhism). ‘Dizziness of freedom’ Existentialism: Anxiety or angst is rooted in the possibilities of freedom (Kierkegaard). Correlative thinking Eastern Philosophy: A yin and yang approach simultaneously carves out similarities and distinctiveness (Taoism). Embracing Existentialism: Recognizing and acknowledging the paradoxical state are the only defensible options (Camus). Dialectics: A contradiction is embraced by means of synthesis (Hegel). Logic: Contradicting arguments can be transcended (Kant). Balancing Eastern Philosophy: A ‘middle way’ can be used to accommodate contradicting extremes (Buddhism; Confucianism) Vicious cycle Philosophy of Language: Any ‘solution’ reproduces the problem (Priest). Dynamic process Dialectics: Dialectics is a teleological process, progressing toward a greater truth (Hegel). Societal change occurs through contradictions and their synthesis. Over-emphasis of one side can lead to destructive shifts (Marx & Engels).
12
Origin Origin groups two meta-theoretical elements of paradox research: inherent tensions and social construction (see Smith and Lewis 2011). These elements locate the origin of paradoxical tensions as an objective reality of organizational life versus as emerging through perception, language, and the behavior of individuals and collectives. Inherent tensions suggest that organizations’ struggle with complexity and ambiguity is a natural organizational characteristic (Lewis and Smith 2014). Accepting dual demands has helped reframe systemic organizational elements, such as exploration and exploitation (Raisch and Birkinshaw 2008) and stability and change (Farjoun 2010), as contradictory yet essential requirements. Further, research acknowledges individual-level paradoxes and contradictions as inherent in group life (Smith and Berg 1987). Viewing tensions as inherent to organizational life, management research has leveraged existentialist and Eastern philosophy (e.g., Lewis 2000) suggesting that paradoxes are a normal feature of human existence. Using these philosophical lenses for future research could further explain human life’s inherent tensions. For instance, if humans struggle with flux and stability, as well as with the finite and infinite, how do organizations impact this struggle? Do organizations further intensify life’s paradoxicality or reduce its tensions’ impact? Moreover, insights from political philosophy on individuals’ multiple roles could help explain the origin of tensions. These roles may stem from a society’s normative conception and differing individual and collective objectives. Such a lens could also help assess the extent to which paradoxical tensions are system imperatives, or are of normative origin. Management research using multiple objectives, such as stakeholder value (Parmar et al. 2010) or the multi-objective firm (Mitchell et al. 2016), could especially benefit from this lens. Social construction refers to actors failing to recognize the relation between two elements of a tension, or to actors polarizing these elements (Lewis and Smith 2014). According to Hahn et al. (2014), individuals have different cognitive frames that influence their sensemaking of paradoxical tensions. Social construction can also stem from conflicting values (Scherer et al. 2013) or might emerge through discourse (Putnam et al., 2016). Referring to Wittgenstein’s “language games,” Clegg et al. (2002) see “the imperfection of language” (491) as the origin of contradictions in organizations, which emerge through collective interaction. Future management research could further leverage a philosophy of language lens: If, as Wittgenstein suggests, pictures and analogies are used to communicate ideas, the role of metaphors in creating or avoiding tensions becomes critical (Oswick et al. 13
2002). This view might also help explain mixed messages better (Argyris 1993), since, according to Wittgenstein, shared practices help interpret pictures correctly. In addition, leveraging an existentialist lens could clarify the origin of paradoxical tensions with regard to the human condition’s limits. Camus suggests that the reality that these limits pose opposes the aim to overcome them. Moreover, political philosophy and ethics can help outline the actual incompatibilities of (ethical) values. For instance, paradox research on institutional logics (Smith and Tracey 2016) could benefit from identifying tensions as rooted in consequentialist and deontological approaches. While the discussion on inherent and socially constructed paradoxes has generated rich insights (Clegg 2002), Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that paradoxes are both inherent and constructed. They maintain that while tensions are inherent to social systems, they remain latent until environmental factors marked by plurality, change, and scarcity, or actors’ cognition render them salient. While conceptualizing tensions as socially constructed or systemically inherent leads to very different research questions, future research could further elaborate on their interplay (Schad et al. 2016). Taking political philosophy’s systemic tensions and ethics’ conflicting individual values as complementary lenses might help identify the different origins, which implies even more complex approaches.
Concept Concept
comprises
the
three
defining
elements
of
paradoxes:
contradiction,
interdependence, and persistence. Schad et al.’s (2016: 10) definition of paradox as a “persistent contradiction between interdependent elements” also reflects these elements. In management, definitions of paradox include contradiction as a central element (Lewis 2000). Poole and Van de Ven (1989) argue that paradoxes grow from the contradiction between two “internally consistent theories of limited scope” (562). Consequently, contradiction is used as a starting point for theorizing. In social sciences, paradoxes are also marked by time and space. Only if contradictory demands occur simultaneously is something perceived as contradictory (Lewis 2000). To describe the role of contradiction, management research has made reference to formal logic (Smith and Berg 1987), although social science paradoxes “are not, strictly speaking, logical paradoxes” (Poole and Van de Ven 1989: 562). Future paradox research could benefit even more from various philosophy aspects. For instance, as illustrated by Zeno, the role of time and space in contradictions requires further
14
exploration. Temporal and spatial aspects might influence the way contradictions are conceptualized. This becomes even more crucial when “virtual work” (Wilson et al. 2008) and different time dimensions (Crossan et al. 2005; Huy 2001) are taken into account. To what extent do paradoxes need a simultaneous occurrence in time and space to be perceived as contradictory? In addition, opposing logic premises can be further reflected on in multiparadigmatic research. Elaborating on theories’ contradicting basic assumptions can help establish paradox as a “theorizing tool” (Lewis and Grimes 1999; Lewis and Kelemen 2002). On the theorizing level, Aristotle’s “law of non-contradiction” could be used as a “test” for paradoxes. Rather than a simple tension, a contradiction is a strong and persistent conceptual and/or experienced problem. Interdependence shows that a tension’s elements are fundamentally linked to one another (Schad et al. 2016). Elaborating on these elements’ relationship has helped reconceptualize fundamental tensions, such as the relationship between competition and cooperation (Chen 2008), as well as between retrenchment and recovery activities (Schmitt and Raisch 2013). This research has helped identify the synergies and complementarities of paradoxical tensions and elaborate on them (Smith and Lewis 2011). Farjoun (2010) takes a duality perspective on the stability and change paradox: The opposed elements are interdependent, “contradictory but also mutually enabling” (202). In this perspective, a contradiction’s elements form the two extremes of a continuum (Chen 2008). An Eastern philosophical perspective has mainly been leveraged to introduce a more holistic view of opposites, and shows that a tension’s elements can depend on one another (e.g., Chae and Bloodgood 2006; Li 2016). The yin and the yang ― both elements contain a part of the other and inform each other ― often symbolize paradoxes (Lewis 2000). Schad et al. (2016) suggest that elaborating better on holism will benefit future research, especially when taking interwoven tensions into consideration. However, it will be difficult to determine a holistic approach’s limits. Taking a dialectical idealism lens, as Hegel suggests, could elevate tensions to higher level paradoxes. Further, Eastern philosophy knows a multiplicity of paradoxes and emphasizes holism as a state of “completeness” (Li 2016). The interdependence of contradictory elements implies the persistence of paradoxes (Schad et al. 2016). A tension’s persistence over time is a key criterion to distinguish it from other tension-based approaches (Smith and Lewis 2011). This also illustrates that a paradox cannot simply be resolved (Lewis 2000). Temporarily accommodating a paradox on one dimension reproduces it on a different dimension (Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Smith 2014). In
15
management research, approaches shifted from trying to resolve paradoxes to “working through” them (Lüscher and Lewis 2008). Management research has made use of the philosophy of language to illustrate the persistence of paradoxes (Smith and Berg 1987). As the philosophy of language suggests, self-reference will continuously return tension to the surface. Moreover, future research could use a logic lens and, as Gödel suggests, question theories’ basic assumptions. While some tensions might be “resolved,” the actual paradoxes might be rooted in the underlying, abstract premises. Together, all three criteria ― contradiction, interdependence, and persistence ― need to be present to ensure that research actually deals with a paradox.
Responses Responses are central once a paradoxical tension is salient and can thus be experienced (Smith and Lewis 2011). This group comprises defensive and strategic responses to paradoxes ― both of which are core elements of a paradox meta-theory (Lewis and Smith 2014). Defensive responses deal with resistance to and avoidance of paradoxes (Lewis and Smith 2014). Foundational works in psychology and psychoanalysis largely influence management research on defensive responses (Smith and Berg 1987) and provide insights into individuallevel reactions to paradoxes (Schad et al. 2016). Paradoxes can cause strong emotional reactions and a feeling of discomfort (Ashforth and Reingen 2014; Vince and Broussine 1996). These insights into how individuals might ‘suffer’ from paradox show similarities to Buddhism. This lens could be especially promising in research on leadership and paradoxes (Ou et al. 2015), since Buddhism also deals with moral conduct towards others. Further, Kierkegaard’s (1954) idea of the “dizziness of freedom” could be promising in terms of counter-intuitive research questions. In this regard, discomfort might stem from a large range of (positive) possibilities, which might be a “too-much-of-a-good-thing effect” (Pierce and Aguinis 2013). For instance, while complete information is often positively attributed to decision-making, too much information might actually hinder decision-taking (Dean and Sharfman 1996). Strategic responses engage a tension’s elements (Lewis and Smith 2014). This emphasis is closely linked to cognition and framing issues (Lüscher and Lewis 2008; Smith and Tushman 2005). Likewise, paradox research emphasizes the importance of paradoxical thinking and sensemaking in response to tensions (Miron-Spektor et al. 2011). Research has identified
16
different approaches to help balance paradoxical tensions (Poole and Van de Ven 1989; Putnam et al. 2016). While earlier studies chose one approach over others, recent paradox research recognizes a multiplicity of simultaneous approaches (Smith 2014). In management, researchers, inspired by the respective traditions, have drawn on Eastern and Western philosophy to contrast different response logics (Li 2014a; Li 2014b). Researchers have also drawn on Confucius and Aristotle to advocate balance by means of a middle ground between two extremes (Pierce and Aguinis 2013). Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that balance in management cannot be static, but that paradoxes can be successfully addressed by means of a ‘dynamic equilibrium.’ Future research could focus more on balancing questions (Schad et al. 2016). For instance, the ‘correlative thinking’ that Taoism introduced (Graham 1986) could inform us about paradoxical thinking as a balancing mechanism influencing strategic responses. Future research on responses could explore the interplay between defensive reactions and strategic approaches in greater detail. If paradoxes imply strong emotional reactions, their approaches can be framed accordingly. Strategic responses might also trigger various defensive responses. This becomes even more relevant when multiple paradoxes interact with one another (Jarzabkowski et al. 2013), and balancing thus becomes a dynamic process. Using and contrasting multiple lenses could help explain how defensive and strategic responses relate to one another. Drawing on existentialism emphasizes emotions, while logic underlines rationality. Combining rationalization and emotion aspects might help researchers understand their interplay (Vince 2006) to determine how tensions trigger emotions, but also how emotions can provide a successful response to paradoxes.
Development The last group, development, adds a temporal and dynamic perspective. The two metatheoretical elements are: reinforcing cycles and process dynamics. Together, they help conceptualize how paradoxes unfold and develop over time (Lewis and Smith 2014; Schad et al. 2016). Reinforcing cycles are central when examining the interplay of a tension’s elements over time (Lewis and Smith 2014). Lewis (2000) explains that paradoxes can create a reinforcing cycle, which can be vicious or virtuous. Vicious cycles can be rooted in intentional individual behavior with unintended consequences of organizational decline (Masuch 1985;
17
Sundaramurthy and Lewis 2003). In contrast, Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that a dynamic equilibrium can lead to a virtuous cycle. In their conception of paradox, Smith and Berg (1987) drew on the philosophy of language to illustrate that self-reference, contradiction, and circularity are central. The closely related insights from the philosophy of language and logic could inspire future research to take a dynamic perspective. Such lenses emphasize that any proposed “solution” continuously reproduces the initial tension ― organizational achievements are therefore temporal “outcomes.” This becomes even more problematic when taking into account that tensions, once accommodated on one level, can be reproduced at higher levels, and that multiple paradoxical tensions are interrelated (Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013). Process dynamics provide a longitudinal perspective on paradoxes (Schad et al. 2016). Researchers refer to the philosophical sources in dialectics to illustrate movement around tensions and their changing, emerging character (Clegg et al. 2002; Cunha et al. 2002; Langley and Sloan 2012). For instance, Harvey (2014) describes a group innovation processes in which the main tensions are recurrently accommodated by means of synthesis. Paradox scholars distinguish between dialectics and paradox: When a synthesis is temporal and the main tension remains, dialectics equals a paradox (Smith and Lewis 2011). The paradox focus and the dialectical emphasis of processes and change could also be used complementarily, since they share common philosophical roots (Farjoun 2016). To build on these rich roots, future research could leverage the different dialectical traditions in philosophy better by, for instance, following Hegel’s idealist dialectics that tensions develop teleologically. For paradox, this view implies that each accommodation may give rise to a paradox at a higher, more complex level (Lado et al. 2006) ― paradoxes encompass additional elements after each new synthesis. Furthermore, paradox research might benefit from Marx and Engels’s dialectical materialism. These philosophers describe process dynamics, such as shifts and disruptions, as due to the main contradictions, as well as due to social and political forces. Future research might examine how tensions progress and what drives the change, which suggests reflecting on the role of power in paradox research (Fairhurst et al. 2016; Hargrave and Van de Ven 2017).
18
Conclusion Informed by a multiplicity of philosophical traditions, paradox in management and organization research has gained momentum over the past decades. Contradiction, interdependence, and persistence constitute paradoxes, which become salient under conditions of change, plurality, and scarcity (Schad et al. 2016; Smith and Lewis 2011). This chapter takes stock of the different philosophical sources. Presenting them as lenses, a systematic overview shows the links between philosophy and the core elements of paradox research. Through such an approach, the boundaries of paradoxical conceptualizations in philosophy become clearer, which might help avoid imposing one best-fit approach and guide future research. Recently repositioned as a meta-theory of organizational tensions, paradox serves as a “theoretical framework” and a “theorizing tool” (Lewis and Smith 2014). As a theoretical framework, paradox helps explore tensions in context. Depending on the elements of a paradox meta-theory, certain philosophical lenses might be more helpful in terms of guiding theoretical reflection. Formulating the general principles of a paradox meta-theory may help build hypotheses and ‘test’ paradox theory (Schad et al. 2016). The proposed overview may help identify philosophical lenses that fit certain paradox meta-theory aspects. Some philosophical traditions might not be suitable for a certain level of analysis of and debate on paradox in management research. As a “theorizing tool,” a paradox meta-theory facilitates multi-paradigmatic research (Lewis and Grimes 1999; Lewis and Kelemen 2002; Poole and Van de Ven 1989). Interpreting philosophical traditions as lenses preserves their unique value and enables scientific progress through juxtaposition (Lewis and Smith 2014). As such, paradox becomes a method to deal with tensions between paradigms. Many of these tensions originate from differences between philosophical traditions and worldviews. Analyzing the underlying premises between these traditions will lead to confronting oneself with statements that cannot be proved true. For instance, Eastern philosophy’s suggestions regarding the metaphysical assumptions underlying a holistic view of paradoxes lead to entirely different insight than the individual level insights of existentialism, which points to humans’ limits in terms of perceiving and experiencing their lives’ fundamental contradictions. Nevertheless, the two lenses can inform each other and generate entirely new insights.
19
Returning “ad fontes,” and taking the root’s contradictions seriously, can help us learn better from past discussions, which can guide our future research. This learning helps us avoid reinforcing existing tensions and theory conflicts better, as well as avoid causing new ones. While this ‘philosophical plurality’ has great potential to further inform a meta-theory of paradox, it also raises fundamental questions with regard to ontology and epistemology. What is the nature of our (social) reality? How do we acquire knowledge? For instance, as a metatheory, paradox will have to engage in discussions about the (in-) commensurability of different philosophical lenses (Scherer et al. 2015). As such, we move toward a philosophy of science debate.
Acknowledgements I wish to thank Marianne Lewis for her thoughtful insights and developmental guidance, as well as Miguel Pina e Cunha, Elisabeth Does, and Sebastian Raisch for their helpful comments.
20
References Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4): 696-717. Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social choice and individual values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ashforth, B. E., and Reingen, P. H. 2014. Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3): 474516. Bentham, J. (1789) 1907. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Camus, A. (1942) 1955. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays, translated by J. O'Brien. New York, NY: Vintage. Capra, F. 1975. The Tao of Physics. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Chae, B., and Bloodgood, J. M. 2006. The paradoxes of knowledge management: An Eastern philosophical perspective. Information and Organization, 16(1): 1-26. Chen, M.-J. 2008. Reconceptualizing the competition–cooperation relationship: A transparadox perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4): 288-304. Clegg, S. R. 2002. General introduction. In Management and Organization Paradoxes, edited by S. R. Clegg, 1-10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., and Cunha, M. P. 2002. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5): 483-503. Confucius. 1977. The Four books: Confucian Analects, the Great Learning, the Doctrine of the Mean, the Work of Mencius. Taipei: Wen shi zhe chubanshe. Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P., Vera, D., and Cunha, J. V. 2005. Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30(1): 129-145. Cunha, J. V., Clegg, S. R., and Cunha, M. P. 2002. Management, paradox, and permanent dialectics. In Management and Organization Paradoxes, edited by S. R. Clegg, 11-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dean, J. W., and Sharfman, M. P. 1996. Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decisionmaking effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2): 368-396. Engels, F. 1946. Dialectics of Nature, translated by C. Dutt. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Fairhurst, G. T., Smith, W. K., Banghart, S. G., Lewis, M. W., Putnam, L. L., Raisch, S., and Schad, J. 2016. Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 173-180. Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2): 202-225. Farjoun, M. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. In Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies, edited by A. Langley and H. Tsoukas, 87-109. London: Sage Publications. Ford, J. D., and Backoff, R. W. 1988. Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, edited by R. E. Quinn and K. S. Cameron, 81-121. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Ford, J. D., and Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradictions, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4): 756-785. Fung, Y.-L. (1948) 1966. A Short History of Chinese Philosophy. Now York, NY: The Free Press. Graham, A. C. 1986. Yin-Yang and the Nature of Correlative Thinking. Singapore: Institute of East Asian Philosophies, National University of Singapore. Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., and Figge, F. 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 463-487. Hamburger, M. 1959. Aristotle and Confucius: A comparison. Journal of the History of Ideas, 20(2): 236-249.
21
Hargrave, T. J., and Van de Ven, A. H. 2017. Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies, 38(3-4): 319-339. Harvey, S. 2014. Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3): 324-343. Hegel, G. W. F. (1812) 1998. Hegel's Science of Logic. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Hobbes, T. (1651) 1981. Leviathan. London: Penguin Classics. Hofstadter, D. R. 1979. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York, NY: Basic Books. Howard, T. A. 2006. Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University. New York: Oxford University Press. Hughes, P., and Brecht, G. 1976. Vicious Circles and Infinity: A Panoply of Paradoxes. London: Jonathan Cape. Huy, Q. N. 2001. Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review, 26(4): 601-623. Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., and Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3): 245-280. Jaspers, K. 1953. The origin and goal of history, translated by M. Bullock. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jay, J. 2013. Navigating paradox as mechanisms of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 137-159. Joullié, J.-E. 2016. The philosophical foundations of management thought. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(1): 157-179. Kant, I. (1785) 1997. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason, translated by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kierkegaard, S. (1843) 1987. Either/Or, translated by H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kierkegaard, S. (1844) 1981. The Concept of Anxiety: A Simple Psychologically Orienting Deliberation on the Dogmatic Issue of Hereditary Sin, translated by R. Thomte. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kierkegaard, S. 1954. Fear and Trembling and Sickness unto Death, translated by W. Lowrie. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., Wright, P., and Kroll, M. 2006. Paradox and theorizing within the resourcebased view. Academy of Management Review, 31(1): 115-131.
Lao Tzu. 1963. Tao Te Ching, translated by D. C. Lau. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Langley, A., and Sloan, P. 2012. Organizational change and dialectic processes. In The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change, edited by D. D. Boje, B. Burnes, and J. Hassard (Eds.), 261-275. London: Routledge. Lewis, M. W., and Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 672-690. Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4): 760-776. Lewis, M. W., and Kelemen, M. L. 2002. Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55(2): 251-275. Lewis, M. W., and Smith, W. K. 2014. Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2): 127-149. Li, P. P. 2014a. The unique value of yin-yang balancing: A critical response. Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 321-332. Li, P. P. 2016. Global implications of the indigenous epistemological system from the East. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(1): 42-77. Li, X. 2014b. Can yin-yang guide Chinese indigenous management research? Management and Organization Review, 10(1): 7-27. Locke, J. 1689/1988. Two Treatises of Government (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22
Lüscher, L. S., and Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 221-240. Masuch, M. 1985. Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1): 14-33. Mill, J. S. 1863. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., and Argote, L. 2011. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2): 229-240. Mitchell, R. K., Weaver, G. R., Agle, B. R., Bailey, A. D., and Carlson, J. 2016. Stakeholder agency and social welfare: Pluralism and decision making in the multi-objective corporation. Academy of Management Review, 41(2): 252-275. Morgan, G. 1986. Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., and Grant, D. 2002. Metaphor and Analogical Reasoning in Organization Theory: Beyond Orthodoxy. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 294-303. Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., and Peterson, S. J. 2015. Do Humble CEOs Matter? An Examination of CEO Humility and Firm Outcomes. Journal of Management: forthcoming. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., and de Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1): 403-445. Pierce, J. R., and Aguinis, H. 2013. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2): 313-338. Poole, M. S., and Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 562-578. Priest, G. 1995. Beyond the Limits of Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., and Banghart, S. G. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 65-171. Quinn, R. E., and Cameron, K. S. (eds.). 1988. Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Raisch, S., and Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3): 375-409. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Rescher, N. 2001. Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Rousseau, J.-J. (1762) 1987. On the Social Contract, translated by D. A. Cress. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Russell, B. (1945) 2004. A History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge. Sainsbury, R. M. 2009. Paradoxes (3rd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sartre, J.-P. (1943) 1992. Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, translated by H. E. Barnes. New York, NY: Washington Square Press. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., and Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1): 5-64. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., and Seidl, D. 2013. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2): 259-284. Scherer, A. G., Does, E., and Marti, E. 2015. Epistemology: Philosophical foundations and organizational controversies. In Routledge Companion to Philosophy in Organization Studies, edited by M. Greenwood, R. Mir, and H. Willmott, 33-50. London: Routledge. Schmitt, A., and Raisch, S. 2013. Corporate turnarounds: The duality of retrenchment and recovery. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7): 1216-1244. Schneider, K. J. 1990. The Paradoxical Self: Toward an Understanding of Our Contradictory Nature. New York, NY: Insight Books. Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G., and Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3): 932-970. Smith, K. K., and Berg, D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, W. K., and Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5): 522-536.
23
Smith, W. K., and Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 381-403. Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6): 1592–1623. Smith, W. K., and Tracey, P. 2016. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, 14(4): 455–466. Sorensen, R. A. 2003. Brief History of Paradox: Philosophy and the Labyrinth of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stokes, M. C. 1986. Plato's Socratic Conversations: Drama and Dialectic in Three Dialogues. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sundaramurthy, C., and Lewis, M. W. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3): 397-415. Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. 1988. Paradoxical requirements for a theory of change. In Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, edited by R. E. Quinn and K. Cameron, 19-80. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Vince, R., and Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1): 1-21. Vince, R. 2006. Being taken over: Managers’ emotions and rationalizations during a company takeover. Journal of Management Studies, 43(2): 343-365. Wilson, J. M., O'Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., and Jett, Q. R. 2008. Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7): 979-1002. Wittgenstein, L. (1922) 1995. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by C. K. Ogden. London; New York, NY: Routledge. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) 1971. Philosophical Investigations, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell. Wittgenstein, L. 1956. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.
24
