Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Putnam 2016
Putnam 2016
net/publication/301535174
CITATIONS READS
304 3,611
3 authors:
Scott Banghart
University of California, Santa Barbara
11 PUBLICATIONS 1,182 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by L. Putnam on 16 March 2023.
To cite this article: Linda L. Putnam, Gail T. Fairhurst & Scott Banghart (2016): Contradictions,
Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach, The Academy of
Management Annals, DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
Download by: [University of California Santa Barbara] Date: 19 April 2016, At: 15:50
The Academy of Management Annals, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
LINDA L. PUTNAM*
Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara
GAIL T. FAIRHURST
Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati
SCOTT BANGHART
Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara
1
2 † The Academy of Management Annals
Introduction
Over two decades have passed since Handy (1994) noted that the phrase, “It’s a
paradox,” had become a management cliché for describing opposing forces in
complex organizational environments. For Handy, the phrase was overused
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
and underspecified; but it typified a fact of life, that is, contradiction and
paradox are the “new normal” in this volatile, rapidly changing landscape of
organizations (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004). In particular, the constant pres-
ence of globalization, new technologies, niche markets, flexible yet decentra-
lized structures, and changing economic conditions means that
contradictions are an everyday occurrence in the workplace (Mumby, 2014).
In an effort to remain competitive amid these changes, modern organizations
rely on flexibility to shift work processes, incorporate new technologies, and
outsource labor markets. These shifts create contradictions between old and
new processes and as well as blurring the boundaries among work, home,
and community (Florida, 2003).
As a result, the research on paradox and its related terms, tensions, contra-
dictions, and dialectics, has become so dominant in the organizational land-
scape that it is difficult to use any other words than “paradigmatic” and
“pervasive” to describe the work (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004; Engeström &
Sannino, 2011; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). It not only exists
in management studies but also in interdisciplinary social sciences writ large,
including communication, sociology, psychology, and education (e.g., Fair-
hurst & Putnam, 2014; Good & Michel, 2013; Heydebrand, 1977; Kurian,
Munshi, & Bartlett, 2014; Long, Hall, Bermbach, Jordan, & Patterson, 2008;
Martin, O’Brien, Heyworth, & Meyer, 2008; McGovern, 2014; McGuire,
1992; Schneider, 1971; Yeung, 2004). Interdisciplinary work has also
spawned multiple theories and perspectives for examining organizational con-
tradictions and paradoxes. If placed in conversation with each other, these
different orientations can inform, challenge, and enrich this literature.
To aid in comparing these perspectives, this article focuses on research that
examines contradictions and paradoxes in the processes of organizing—which
forms the foundation of what we call a constitutive approach. By crossing
widely diverse metatheoretical traditions, our goal is to show how a constitutive
view sets forth alternative ways to study organizational paradoxes and contradic-
tions, ones heretofore obscured. Why are alternative approaches needed? Even
though “process” is a celebrated attribute of paradox research (Farjoun, 2010,
in press), it has not always had center stage in paradox studies. This review high-
lights how theoretical platforms have emerged to study process in alternative
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 3
ways, ones that incorporate but move beyond dynamic equilibrium models
(Lewis, 2000). These approaches raise new and different questions about the
inner workings of paradoxical phenomena and are thus a key way to infuse
the study of paradox with added complexity and explanatory power.
To this end, this article shifts the locus of paradox and contradiction to dis-
courses, social interaction processes, practices, and ongoing organizational
activities rather than actors’ cognitions or large-scale systems. Thus, we
adopt a bottom-up view of organizing, one that focuses on how tensions, con-
tradictions, and dialectics develop as part of actions and interactions. In doing
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
question that guides this review is: What can we learn about organizational
paradoxes and contradictions through examining research that embraces a
process-driven, constitutive approach?
At the end of the article, we draw some conclusions regarding what we have
learned from using a constitutive lens to understand organizational contradic-
tions and paradoxes, and we discuss methodological issues for conducting
research on organizational paradoxes. We also advocate developing a metaper-
spective or framework in which multiple traditions in paradox work can
coexist and engage in dialogue with each other. Finally, we set forth three
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
areas for future research on paradox studies, namely, sharpening the focus
on time, rethinking notions of rationality, and exploring the dialectic
between order-disorder. The overall aim of this review is to deduce patterns
regarding how contradictions and paradoxes develop in organizational pro-
cesses; how they evolve and play out in organizational activities; and how
actors respond to and manage them.
Tension
As organizational actors encounter incompatibilities and dilemmas, they
experience tensions, defined as stress, anxiety, discomfort, or tightness in
making choices and moving forward in organizational situations (Fairhurst
& Putnam, 2014). Tensions are feeling states, ones that often result from frus-
tration, blockage, uncertainty, and even paralysis that individuals face in
dealing with contradictions and paradoxes (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Berg, 1987;
Smith & Lewis, 2011; Vince & Broussine, 1996). Organizational actors see,
feel, cognitively process, and even communicate about tensions as they experi-
ence them. Thus, tensions underlie the other constructs in this arena.
Tension, however, is often the broadest, most ambiguous of the concepts,
and the one that scholars frequently use to signify all paradoxical dynamics.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Dualism The existence of opposite poles, dichotomies, binary . Polarization of theoretical positions that revolve around the problematic
relationships that are able to create tensions, but can nature of the relationship between ‘action’ and ‘structure’ (Knights, 1997)
be separated . Dualism usually shows a clear-cut and decisive contrast, a well-defined
boundary, and no overlap. This often becomes synonymous with
opposition and potential conflict. To be effective, a dualism must be
comprehensive; it can have no middle or external ground and often rests
on mutually exclusive and exhaustive classes (Farjoun, 2010)
Duality Interdependence of opposites in a both/and relationship that is not . Two seemingly opposite concepts that are interdependent rather than
mutually exclusive or antagonistic separate or mutually exclusive (Farjoun, 2010).
. Dualistic elements that may be interdependent and conceptually distinct,
rather than opposed (Sutherland & Smith, 2011)
. Exploring the links between apparently opposite dimensions through
maintaining conceptual distinctions without being committed to rigid
antagonism or separation (Jackson, 1999; Smith & Graetz, 2006a)
. Opposites that exist within a unified whole; internal boundary creates
distinction and highlights opposition; external boundary encourages
synergies by constructing the unified whole (Smith & Lewis, 2011)
5 †
(Continued)
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
6 †
The Academy of Management Annals
Table 1 (Continued)
Construct Our Definition Definitions in the Literature
Contradiction Bipolar opposites that are mutually exclusive and interdependent such that . Diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive choices (Putnam, 1986)
the opposites define and potentially negate each other . Opposite sides of the same coin; the more actors move toward one pole,
the more they feel pulled toward the opposite (Smith & Lewis, 2011)
. Simultaneous presence of presumed opposites, incompatibilities, or
irrationalities that characterize the ambiguous, ever-changing, and
complex features of organizational life (Jones, 2004)
. Oppositions that lie partly in resource limitations and partly in multiple
and equally legitimate values grounded in different institutional spheres
(Abdallah, Denis, & Langley, 2011)
. Sources of conflict that fuel change, set limits on the possibilities for
reconstruction, and may enhance variations in social order (Benson,
1977; Heydebrand, 1977; Zeitz, 1980)
. A disjuncture of opposing forces in the central property of a system that
creates antagonism of opposites (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Howard & Geist,
1995; Meyers & Garrett, 1993)
. Primary contradictions, such as capitalism, form generative principles for
multiple secondary contradictions (Giddens, 1984)
. An inherent opposition that stems from capitalist economy, power
relationships, and structural arrangements that forms ruptures and
radical breaks from the existing orders (Benson, 1973; Willmott, 1990)
. How concepts come into opposition to create meanings in ways that
juxtapose power and hierarchical differences (Jones, 2004; Mumby &
Stohl, 1991)
(Continued)
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 1 (Continued)
Construct Our Definition Definitions in the Literature
Dialectics Interdependent opposites aligned with forces that push-pull on each other . Method of epistemic inquiry in which scholars search for the
like a rubber band and exist in an ongoing dynamic interplay as the poles fundamental principles that account for the emergence and dissolution of
implicate each other. Focuses on the unity of opposites and the forces or social orders through contradictory forms (Benson, 1977; Willmott, 1990)
7 †
(Continued)
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
8 †
The Academy of Management Annals
Table 1 (Continued)
Construct Our Definition Definitions in the Literature
Paradox Contradictions that persist over time, impose and reflect back on each . The effects of imperatives or injunctions to comply with simultaneously
other, and develop into seemingly irrational or absurd situations because mutually exclusive actions (Smith & Berg, 1987; Stohl & Cheney, 2001;
their continuity creates situations in which options appear mutually Wendt, 1998)
exclusive, making choices among them difficult . Oppositional tendencies brought into recognition through reflection or
interaction (Ford & Backoff, 1988; Smith & Tushman, 2005)
. Contradictory and interrelated elements that persist over time and exist
simultaneously and synergistically and expose seemingly irrational and
absurd relationships, processes and practices (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis,
2011)
. Perceptual or cognitively constructed polarities that mask the
simultaneity of conflicting truths (Smith & Lewis, 2011)
. Contradictions embedded in multiple interrelated oppositions; the
simultaneous presence of contradictory and mutually exclusive elements
(Fairhurst et al., 2002)
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 9
Dualism/Duality
Dualism refers to opposite poles, dichotomies, binary relationships, or bipolar
opposites (Bisel, 2009; Knights, 1997; Nasim & Sushil, 2011). Organizational
theory is replete with binary relationships, such as micro-macro, action-struc-
ture, and symbolic-material. Dualisms lie at the heart of contradictions and
paradoxes in that they set up bipolar relationships that often permeate dualities
in the field (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999), but these relationships are not necess-
arily incompatible or mutually exclusive. While scholars differ in their defi-
nitions (see Table 1), dualisms have clear-cut boundaries between poles and
can be addressed through treating them as compatible and interdependent,
rather than antagonistic and separate. As an example, organizational actors
often combine short and long-term needs in situations in which they are not
treated as mutually exclusive or opposite of each other. In a similar way, the
concepts of exploration and exploitation in the organizational change literature
are not necessarily antithetical or mutually exclusive (see Farjoun, 2010).1
In contrast, duality refers to the interdependence of opposites that form a
both-and relationship, evident in such concepts as structuration or
10 † The Academy of Management Annals
ambidexterity (Bisel, 2009; Nasim & Sushil, 2011; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).
Based on changes in classic dualisms (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999), scholars are
now addressing organizational complexity through embracing both poles sim-
ultaneously. Importantly, duality is a readily available option for theory devel-
opment since the selected oppositional pairs are not necessarily viewed in
antithetical or antagonistic ways.
Contradiction
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Dialectics
Drawing on contradiction, the term dialectics refers to the ongoing, dynamic
interplay of opposite poles as they implicate each other (Carlo, Lyytinen, &
Boland, 2012) as well as to the unity of opposites (Bledow et al., 2009). In
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 11
Paradox
Paradox refers to the contradictory features in organizations that exist simul-
taneously and synergistically over time, and become seemingly irrational or
absurd (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Paradoxes
differ from contradictions in that they create situations of almost impossible
choice, hence the seeming irrationality or absurdity of the situation (see
Table 1). They are often linked to surprising or ironic outcomes and inconsis-
tencies, for example, situations that lead to inefficient efficiencies, equity
12 † The Academy of Management Annals
their lives” is paradoxical (Putnam, Myers, & Gailliard, 2014, p. 427). Auton-
omy or freedom in scheduling work and task activities exist in opposition to
control in which direct supervision, normative behaviors, and professional
socialization regulate workers’ lives (Evans, Kunda, & Barley, 2004). In this
example, both autonomy and control reflect back on and constrain each
other through expectations for effective performance or meeting the standards
of an “ideal worker” (Wieland, 2010).
This tension then leads to ironic and seemingly absurd outcomes; that is,
autonomy often increases rather than decreases workplace control. Thus,
paradox incorporates features of another related term, irony. As a literary
trope, irony is typically defined as incongruity between what is expected and
what occurs or saying one thing and meaning the opposite (Oswick,
Putnam, & Keenoy, 2004). Irony then often forms through oppositional ten-
sions that cross texts, subtexts, and context. It is also a way of responding to
and coping with contradictions. Irony thus aligns with the notion of surprise
or absurdity that accompanies paradox; however, organizational occurrences
can be paradoxical without necessarily being ironical.
Some scholars draw from family systems theory to examine how organiz-
ational paradoxes emerge from responding to mutually exclusive commands
or opposite injunctions; thus to comply with one request, is to necessarily
negate its opposite (Kets de Vries, 1980; Putnam, 1986; Stohl & Cheney,
2001). For example, a supervisor who directs her subordinates to be innovative
and make their own decisions and then simultaneously reprimands them for
not doing what she wants gives mutually exclusive commands. Subordinates
often oscillate between choices that are both right and wrong and thus seem
impossible to make. Thus, in a paradoxical situation, contradictory poles
reflect on each other in an ongoing relationship that, in turn, shapes the
paradox itself and the responses to it.
To summarize, our definitions of relevant constructs (see Table 1) align
with a constitutive view of organizational paradox. This view grounds tensions
in routine patterns of organizing in which contradictions emerge, evolve, and
become interwoven in ongoing struggles (dialectics). At the individual level,
organizational members experience these tensions in workplace routines and
must respond to them in their actions and interactions. These responses
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 13
occur in the context of past practices that collectively develop into systemic
processes. For example, Tracy (2004) illustrated how correction officers at a
prison experienced contradictions between organizational rules and efforts to
respect and be empathic with inmates. Everyday interactions were grounded
in a balancing act of contradictions that arose from adhering to the rules, fol-
lowing organizational norms, and finding ways to be human. Thus, in a con-
stitutive view, paradoxes emanate from social actions and interactions as
organizational members respond to and process contradictions in ways that
create systematic patterns. These patterns become embedded in routines and
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
structures, are brought from the past into the future, and evolve as organizing
continues across time and space. The interrelationships among these con-
structs align with five dimensions of a constitutive approach in ways that
lead to six types of process outcomes.
Developmental Tensions emerge, evolve, and transform across time and space in . Dynamic interplay of organizational processes
Actions dynamic organizational processes. . Rooted in actions and interactions that evolve over
time
. Amplifying and building on each other over time
. Indeterminate and recursive
Socio-historical Tensions are rooted in particular historical periods or at the . Situated in particular historical periods, stages,
Conditions interfaces of past, present, and future. phases, fluctuations
. Linked to prior discourses and meaning structures
Continued
15 †
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
16 †
The Academy of Management Annals
Table 2 (Continued)
Feature Definition Characteristics
Presence of A variety of tensions may be operative simultaneously, located at . Multiple tensions develop and multiple meanings,
Multiples multiple levels (i.e., interpersonal/dyadic, group/team, intergroup, interpretations, and voices enter into their
organizational, interorganizational, societal/environmental) and development and evolution
across multiple sources (i.e., circumstances, events, actors, etc.). . Tracking of tensions across multiple levels and
The ways actors interpret, engage, and act on them can take sources
multiple forms. . Focus on how managing tension at one level or in
one source may spark new tensions at another
. Actions and interactions that link the local to global
. Tensions are interrelated and/or interwoven—can
form families, hierarchies, and knots
Praxis In practice, actors develop different levels of understanding about . Moving forward
tensions and make choices about engaging and responding to them . Reflexivity and awareness
as well as how to move forward amid complex circumstances. W Discursive consciousness
tensions
. Understanding situational triggers
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
†
Reproducing power relationships become altered in responding to
17
Organizations contradictions and tensions; transforming refers to changes;
reproducing refers to preserving the status quo.
18 † The Academy of Management Annals
events, episodes, eras, etc.) that situate contradictions in societal and organiz-
ation contexts.
The fourth dimension, the presence of multiples, encompasses three sub-fea-
tures of a constitutive view of paradoxes: multiple levels, multiple tensions, and
multiple voices. Studies that embrace a constitutive view typically emphasize
multiplicity by incorporating one or more of these three sub-features. Multiple
levels refer to the organizational arenas in which contradictions and paradoxes
are enacted (e.g., dyadic, team, intergroup, organizational, institutional, and
societal). In a constitutive view, tensions and contradictions become embedded
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
in multiple structures, systems, and contexts, and actors often connect and
interweave them across levels. Specifically, actions and interactions in daily
routines (i.e., local levels) draw on contradictions from organizational and
institutional arenas (i.e. global levels) and vice versa.
In addition, tensions and contradictions often occur in multiples, rather
than as one bi-polar opposite. For Benson (1977), ongoing processes that are
both internal and external to an organization produce a complex array of mul-
tiple, interrelated tensions. Arrays of tensions and sub-tensions can develop
simultaneously and amplify each other. The notion that tensions become
bundled has reached the level of conventional wisdom in organizational
studies; however, researchers in a particular study typically segment and
single out tensions (Huxham & Beech, 2003; Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi,
in press). A constitutive perspective challenges this practice.
In a similar way, contradictions often stem from multiple voices, clashes
between different discourses, and diverse interests that typify the fast pace of
organizational life (Fleming & Spicer, 2008; Ruud, 2000). Thus, the presence
of multiples refers to a variety of competing discourses and interpretations
that give rise to contradictory actions, ones that emanate from opposite
ideas, interests, and social structures that characterize complex organizations
(Langley & Sloan, 2011).
A fifth and final dimension of a constitutive approach is praxis, which draws
from Hegelian dialectical theory (Benson, 1977) and focuses on an actor’s
awareness or consciousness of contradictions and paradoxes. This conscious-
ness emanates in felt experiences, self-monitoring of behavioral patterns, rec-
ognition of clashes in actions, and understanding the nature of tensions in an
organizational field (Shotter & Tsoukas, 2014). It entails being reflexive about
actions and interactions; analyzing and penetrating tension-producing struc-
tures and experiences; and making choices to call into question, respond,
and move forward amid contradictions and tensions.3
In short, these five dimensions form the ontological foundation of a consti-
tutive approach as well as the framework for examining the process-based lit-
erature on contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. Even though they are not
necessarily unique to this perspective, they coalesce to form an alternative
approach to the study of organizational paradoxes. The literature included in
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 19
this review embodies at least one, but frequently several of these dimensions,
depending on research designs and metatheoretical traditions. These dimen-
sions form a set of interrelated characteristics that aid in examining how ten-
sions, contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes form and play out in
organizations. They provide cues for deciphering how paradoxes emerge
from in situ practices and evolve into systemic patterns linked to multiple
organizational levels. They also provide a way to examine process outcomes,
which are the overall effects of enacting and responding to paradoxes under
diverse organizational circumstances.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Process Outcomes
Process outcomes are the systems’ effects that stem from responding to and
moving forward as tensions develop over time in streams of action. They
focus on the durable and transformative aspects of tension management and
the recurring ways that past contradictions enter into present and future organ-
izational practices. A constitutive view incorporates, but moves beyond, posi-
tive and negative consequences of paradoxes (e.g., generating creativity,
developing ambivalence, etc.; Smith & Lewis, 2011) by examining the outcomes
that occur from enacting contradictions in organizational processes.
We highlight six interrelated process outcomes that surface across the litera-
ture: (1) vicious and/or virtuous cycles; (2) double binds and paralysis; (3)
unintended consequences; (4) enabling and/or constraining actions; (5)
opening up and/or closing off participation; and (6) transforming or reprodu-
cing existing practices, structures, and systems (see Table 3). Vicious and vir-
tuous cycles, as other scholars have noted (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014;
Lüscher, Lewis, & Ingram, 2006; Putnam, 1986; Smith & Lewis, 2011), are itera-
tive spirals that grow out of the ways that actors respond to contradictions
(Masuch, 1985). Also known as causal loops or deviation-amplifying processes
(Maruyama, 1963; Weick, 1979), these self-reinforcing cycles typically grow
out of the action-based consequences of responding to contradictions in
ways that become linked to future interactions. They tie directly to paradoxes
since self-reinforcing cycles can develop into unusual routines or crazy systems
that generate confusion and blind alleys, often beginning where they end (Rice
& Cooper, 2010).
Whereas virtuous cycles embrace contradictory spirals in ways that inspire
learning, creativity, and discovery (Smith & Lewis, 2011), vicious cycles fuel
negative patterns of defensiveness and inertia (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith,
2014; Lüscher et al., 2006; Putnam, 1986). Vicious cycles can also develop
into double binds or paralysis that stem from a perpetual oscillation between
non-existent alternatives or a feeling of being “damned if you do and
damned if you don’t” in a particular situation (Wagner, 1978; Watzlawick
et al., 1967; Wendt, 1998). Thus, a second type of process outcome, double
20 † The Academy of Management Annals
binds and paralysis, leave actors feeling paralyzed or entrapped (Bateson, 1972;
Ford & Backoff, 1988; Kets de Vries, 1978).
Similar to vicious cycles, responses to contradictions can also lead to conse-
quences that were not anticipated or intended. Unintended consequences are ones
that actors neither expected nor preferred, if they could have acted differently
(Jian, 2007b). They also entail actions that result in surprises or unanticipated
consequences, especially ones that end up the opposite of what was initially
desired (McKinley & Scherer, 2000). Other scholars focus on how managing
contradictions enables and/or constrains future actions through the ways that
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
structures and systems are both altered and reproduced, as evident in the
work on structuration (McPhee et al., 2014). The extent to which actors are
aware of system conditions and are able to monitor their activities aids in devel-
oping actions that foster opportunities and choices (Haslett, 2012).
A process outcome that surfaces in the critical and postmodern literatures is
the degree to which contradiction opens up or closes off participation. In effect,
tensions that arise from struggles over meaning often provide opportunities to
open dialogue, reveal hidden distortions, challenge inequities, and avoid pre-
mature closure that privileges some actors and marginalizes others (Deetz,
1992). As Mumby (2013) contends, “People don’t challenge or resist their
social reality because they often lack awareness of the contradictions on
which it is based” (p. 168).
Related to these struggles, scholars often cast contradiction as the driving
force of organizational transformation (McPhee et al., 2014; Van de Ven &
Poole, 1995). Transforming organizations, however, exists in a dialectical
relationship with reproducing the status quo; thus, unpacking this dialectic is
a key to deciphering how the enactment of contradiction contributes to chan-
ging or reproducing organizational ideologies, structures, and systems. These
six process outcomes are not mutually exclusive, and they surface in very
different ways across this literature. However, they form a typology for exam-
ining how organizational actors manage tensions and contradictions, often
through simultaneously enacting both change and continuity.
In effect, to develop a metaperspective related to a constitutive approach, we
apply the five dimensions and typology of outcomes to the process-based lit-
erature on organizational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes.4 Our
overall goal is to glean insights about these dimensions and types of process
outcomes from research that crosses five metatheoretical traditions. To this
end, we pose the following questions: How have scholars who study these con-
structs within a particular metatheoretical tradition embraced one or more of
these constitutive dimensions? What roles do these constructs play in different
metatheories? What types of process outcomes emerge from the research and
what can we learn about responding to and embracing tensions? To conduct
this review, we employed a multi-stage approach in sampling and classifying
the literature.
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 21
Methods
Initial Sample
Our review of the organizational literature on contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes began with a broad sweep of six major databases (i.e., Business
Source Complete, Communication Abstracts, Education Resources Information
Center, Education Source, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and
Web of Science) across the social and behavioral sciences. In each database, we
searched for articles that included the term(s) contradiction, dialectic, and/or
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
paradox in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. The term tension was excluded
from this search because it functioned as a meta-concept that ensnared too
many references, especially ones that were not relevant to this review. In
total, these database searches produced nearly 57,000 journal articles published
between 1945 and 2015. We then narrowed the sample to include only those
articles that combined the above terms with organization, management, leader-
ship, groups, or teams in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. This yielded 1946
total references. In addition, reference sections in articles were examined to
identify other publications that focused directly on contradictions, dialectics,
and paradoxes in organizations but were not included in our master list.
These searches identified journal articles that were not included in our database
as well as books and book chapters that we subsequently added to our reference
list.
Next, we confirmed the relevancy of the articles by reviewing the abstracts
for all references. Articles that simply mentioned contradictions, dialectics,
and/or paradoxes but did not directly examine these concepts were excluded
from the list. Publications that treated the three concepts in a superficial, mar-
ginal, or overly generalized way rather than as a phenomenon of interest were
also deleted from the list. Any articles that focused on contexts other than
organizations (e.g., families, romantic relationships, parents, society) or that
did not center on organizations per se were eliminated. To get a comprehensive
picture, we included empirical studies, essays and theory-building articles, lit-
erature reviews and critiques, and interventionist or practitioner-oriented
articles. We also classified and coded each article into over 30 different topic
areas in organizational studies.5
This sampling procedure produced a total of 852 publications that were
entered into a reference-management software platform called EndNote.
This software aided in verifying reference information and sourcing author-
identified keywords through the use of each article’s digital object identifier
(i.e., DOI number). When author-supplied keywords were unavailable,
subject terms listed in the article’s respective database (e.g., EBSCO, Web of
Science, etc.) were retrieved manually and substituted for keywords. We also
concentrated on articles published in organizational studies writ large, includ-
ing disciplinary and interdisciplinary outlets (e.g., organization, management,
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
22 †
The Academy of Management Annals
Table 4 Publications on Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes between 1975-Present
Time Discipline
Organization, Management, & Interdisciplinary Social Public Administration, Marketing, Information &
Business1 Communication2 Sciences3 & Finance4 Technology5 Total
Before 1975 3 1 5 9
1975–1979 15 1 6 1 23
1980–1984 16 2 2 1 21
1985–1989 37 1 2 2 42
1990–1994 40 15 3 2 5 65
1995–1999 67 19 6 2 3 97
2000–2004 124 49 6 1 4 184
2005–2009 106 71 12 8 5 202
2010–2015 125 52 17 9 6 209
Total 533 211 59 26 23 852
Note: 141 total journals and 67 books/edited volumes represented in our database.
(Continued)
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 4 (Continued)
1
Organization, Management, & Business Journals: Academy of Management Annals; Academy of Management Executive; Academy of Management Journal; Academy
of Management Learning & Education; Academy of Management Perspectives; Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management Review; Administrative
Science Quarterly; Asia Pacific Journal of Management; British Journal of Management; Business & Society; Business Ethics Quarterly; California Management Review;
Culture & Organization; Family Process; Gender, Work, & Organization; Harvard Business Review; Human Development; Human Relations; Human Systems
†
5
Information & Technology Journals: IEEE Transactions; Information Systems Research; Journal of Global Information Technology Management; Journal of
23
Information Technology; Journal of Management Information Systems; Journal of Operations Management; Journal of Strategic Information Systems; MIS Quarterly;
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems; Technovation
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
24 †
The Academy of Management Annals
Table 5 Sampled Articles by Areas of Studies
Time Discipline
Organization Public
& Management Interdisciplinary Administration, Information &
Studies6 Communication7 Social Sciences8 Marketing, & Finance9 Technology10 Total
Before 1 1
1975
1975– 1979 8 1 1 10
1980– 1984 7 1 1 9
1985– 1989 13 1 1 15
1990– 1994 11 4 2 17
1995– 1999 20 8 3 1 2 34
2000– 2004 51 26 4 2 83
2005– 2009 42 33 7 3 4 89
2010– 2015 51 30 4 5 2 92
Total 204 102 20 12 12 350
Note: 84 different journals and 9 books/edited volumes represented in the sample.
(Continued)
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 5 (Continued)
25 †
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
26
Table 6 Key References for Annals Review
†
The Academy of Management Annals
Metatheoretical
Traditions References
Process-Oriented Abdallah et al. (2011); Andriopoulos (2003); Apker (2004); Argyris (1982); Arjoon (2006); Bartunek (1984); Bartunek and Rynes (2014); Beer
Systems (2001); Benn and Baker (2009); Bergadaà and Thiétart (1997); Bjerknes (1992); Bloodgood and Chae (2010); Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988);
(n ¼ 171) Bryson (2008); Calori (2002); Canary (2010a, 2010b); Carini, Palich, and Wagner (1995); Carlo et al. (2012); Carroll and Arneson (2003); Castello
and Lozano (2011); Castilla and Benard (2010); Chanin and Shapiro (1985); Child and McGrath (2001); Cho, Mathiassen, and Robey (2007);
Chreim (2005); Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood, and Brown (1996); Cosier (1983); Cosier and Aplin (1980); Cosier, Ruble, and Aplin (1978);
Costanzo and Di Domenico (2015); Cule and Robey (2004); Cunha (2004); Cunha, Kamoche, and Cunha (2003); Cunha, Rego, and Vaccaro
(2014); Das and Kumar (2010); Das and Teng (2000); Davis, Maranville, and Obloj (1997); De Cock and Rickards (1996); Delbridge and Edwards
(2013); Doyle, Claydon, and Buchanan (2000); Drummond (2008); Engeström and Sannino (2011); Fang (2005, 2012); Farjoun (2002, 2010); Fiol
(2002); Foldy (2006); Fombrun (1986); Foot (2001); Ford and Ford (1994, 1995); Freeman and Engel (2007); Garud, Kumaraswamy, and
Sambamurthy (2006); Gebert, Boerner, and Kearney (2010); Ghemawat and Costa (1993); Goldman (2008); Gondo and Amis (2013); Graetz and
Smith (2007, 2009); Gray, Bougon, and Donnellon (1985); Greenwood and Suddaby (2006); Grimes and Cornwall (1987); Groleau, Demers, and
Engeström (2011); Groleau, Demers, Lalancette, and Barros (2012); Haddadj (2006); Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, and Figge (2014); Hargrave and Van de
Ven (2006); Harvey (2014); Hedberg and Jönsson (1978); Hemetsberger and Reinhardt (2009); Hendry (1996); Hennestad (1990); Im and Rai
(2014); Jarzabkowski, Lê, and Van de Ven (2013); Jay (2013); Jenkins and Conley (2007); Jian (2007a, 2007b); Johansson and Stohl (2012); Juanillo
and Scherer (1995); Kerosuo (2011); Khazanchi, Lewis, and Boyer (2007); Klarner and Raisch (2013); Kleist (2013); Koene (2006); Kolb (1987);
Komporozos-Athanasiou and Fotaki (2015); Kozica, Gebhardt, Muller-Seitz, and Kaiser (2015); Ladge, Clair, and Greenberg (2012); Langley and
Sloan (2011); Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, and Van de Ven (2013); Leonard-Barton (1992); Leonardi, Jackson, and Diwan (2009); Littler and Innes
(2004); Long et al. (2008); Lüscher and Lewis (2008); Lüscher et al. (2006); Manz, Anand, Joshi, and Manz (2008); Marcus and Geffen (1998);
Marsh and Macalpine (1999); Mason (1969, 1996); Mason and Mitroff (1979); Mathiassen (1998); McDonald (2011); McGovern (2014); McGuire
(1992); Meyer (2006); Miller, Jablin, Casey, Lamphear-Van Horn, and Ethington (1996); Mills (2007); Mitroff and Emshoff (1979); Mitroff,
Emshoff, and Kilmann (1979); Molinsky (1999); Morrell (2011); Nasim and Sushil (2011); Neimark and Tinker (1987); Newhouse and Chapman
(1996); Nielsen (2008); Nielsen (1996); O’Dwyer (2005); O’Reilly and Tushman (2004, 2013); Orlikowski and Robey (1991); Orton and Weick
(1990); Osborn (1998); Pang, Cropp, and Cameron (2006); Peng and Nisbett (1999); Pierce and Aguinis (2013); Prenkert (2006); Pye (1993);
Qureshi and Keen (2005); Raza-Ullah, Bengtsson, and Kock (2014); Repenning (2002); Repenning and Sterman (2001); Rice and Cooper (2010);
Robey and Boudreau (1999); Robey and Holmstrom (2001); Robey, Ross, and Boudreau (2002); Rond and Bouchikhi (2004); Schreyögg and
Kliesch-Eberl (2007); Schreyögg and Sydow (2010); Schweiger and Sandberg (1989); Schweiger, Sandberg, and Ragan (1986); Schweiger, Sandberg,
and Rechner (1989); Schwenk (1984, 1989); Sharma and Good (2013); Sison (2010); Smith and Graetz (2006a); Smith and Tushman (2005);
Sorensen and Stuart (2000); Stacey (1995); Stevenson, Bartunek, and Borgatti (2003); Stoltzfus, Stohl, and Seibold (2011); Stoppelenburg and
Vermaak (2008); Sutherland and Smith (2011); Van de Ven (1992); Van de Ven and Poole (1995); Varman and Chakrabarti (2004); Vince and
Broussine (1996); Vlaar, Van den, Bosch, and Volberda (2007); Wagner (1978); Walsh and Fahey (1986); Wang and Li (2008); Westenholz (1993);
Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, and Jett (2008); Wooton (1977); Zeitz (1980); Ziller (1977)
Continued
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 6 (Continued)
Metatheoretical
Traditions References
†
(1998); Kellett (1999); Kramer (2004); Levy-Storms, Claver, Gutierrez, and Curry (2011); Lewis et al. (2010); Martin et al. (2008); McGuire (2006);
27
McNamee and Peterson (2014); Medved et al. (2001); Norton and Sadler (2006); Olufowote (2011); Pitts et al. (2009); Putnam, Jahn, and Baker
(2011); Ruud and Sprague (2000); Sias et al. (2004); Steimel (2010); Thatcher (2011); Tracy (2004); Vaughn and Stamp (2003); Williams and
Connaughton (2012); Zorn et al. (2014)
28 † The Academy of Management Annals
doxes. Thus, we examined titles and abstracts of each article to identify publi-
cations that centered on processes, practices, and actions/interactions
associated with these constructs. Specifically, we included publications with a
focus on at least one of the following features: (a) generating and making con-
tradictions salient to organizational actors; (b) tracking the development, evol-
ution, and fluctuation of contradictions over time; (c) describing the dynamic
interplay among dialectics and multiple contradictions; (d) focusing on how
organizational actors recognized, responded to, and managed contradictions,
dialectics, and paradoxes over time; and (e) deciphering the role of contradic-
tions and their evolution in institutional and organizational processes. Based
on these features, our final sample for this particular review included 350 pub-
lications (i.e., 341 journal articles and 9 books/book chapters). Table 5 reports
the distribution of these publications across arenas of organizational studies
and provides a list of the 84 different journals included in our sample.
After we determined the sample, two of the authors sorted the publications
into the five metatheoretical traditions6 based on theoretical assumptions,
design of the study, and the particular cast of the article on contradictions,
paradoxes, and dialectics (see Table 6). Each author then selected a particular
metatheoretical tradition and reviewed a subset of publications by noting the
subject and purpose of each article, definitions of focal constructs, dimensions
used in the publication, general findings regarding relevant constructs, and
process outcomes. Given the scope of this project, we concentrated on
metatheories that embraced a Western slant to contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes; thus, this review did not include Eastern or cross-cultural traditions
that organizational scholars have brought to the study of these constructs.7
Accordingly, throughout this review, we highlight exemplary articles in the
five metatheoretical traditions (i.e., process-oriented systems, structuration,
critical, postmodern, and relational dialectics theories—see Table 7) that
demonstrate key dimensions of a constitutive approach (i.e., discourse, devel-
opmental actions, socio-historical conditions, presence of multiples, and
praxis) and process outcomes. Table 7 provides an overview of the distinctive
features of these five metatheoretical traditions as well as the research streams,
sub-schools of thought, major theorists, and review essays that are associated
with them. Since the process-based systems tradition includes a large
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Dialectics as motors of change . Contradictions serve as one of four motors or generative Ford and Backoff (1988); Van de Ven and Poole
and innovation mechanisms of change (e.g., value clashes, power (1995)
differentials among groups, etc.)
. Treated as discontinuous process linked to conflict,
power struggles, and synthesis
. New developments treat dialectics as continuous Calori (2002); Robey and Boudreau (1999)
movement across multiple levels without a clear synthesis
. Managing tensions through interdependencies across Andriopoulos (2003); Bledow et al. (2009); Zeitz
organizational levels (1980)
Contradictions as paths to . Latent contradictions that lay the seeds for change and Seo and Creed (2002)
institutional change fuel the paradox of embedded agency
. A dialectical process model in which stakeholders Das and Teng (2000); Farjoun (2002)
negotiate inherent contradictions in interorganizational
collaborations
†
Continued
29
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
30
Table 7 (Continued)
†
Metatheoretical Traditions Distinctive Features Major Theorists & Review Essays
. Contradictions as ebbs and . Paradox emerges as individual cognitive schema Lewis (2000); Westenholz (1993)
flows in organizational regarding contradictory forces
change . Systems can maintain “equilibrium” through adaptation Bateson (1972); Lewis (2000); Smith and Lewis
to the continuous push-pull in opposite directions (2011); Westenholz (1993)
. Making sense of paradoxes . New directions focus on sensemaking about Gray et al. (1985)
in ongoing changes contradictions as co-constructed meanings
. Contradictions as layered . Contradictions stem from socio-historical conditions in Blackler (1993); Engeström (2000)
tensions in activity systems which multiple tensions occur within and between
activity systems
Continued
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 7 (Continued)
Metatheoretical Traditions Distinctive Features Major Theorists & Review Essays
Negotiating the dialectic of . Complete control over another cannot be easily realized; McPhee et al. (2014)
control all actors participate in their own process of control and
have degrees of insight regarding it
. Power relations are defined through the interplay of
autonomy and dependence
Continued
31 †
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 7 (Continued)
32
Metatheoretical Traditions Distinctive Features Major Theorists & Review Essays
†
The Academy of Management Annals
Resisting the dominant culture . Engaging in dialectical interactions as an ongoing Mumby (2014)
through dialectics and dialogue struggle over meaning provides an opportunity for
participants to surface ideologies and resist dominant
cultures
. Dialogue or interactions that pair experiences with Deetz (1992)
theory-practice disparities, reclaims taboo meanings, and
engages in resourceful sensemaking
Dialectics as the interplay of . Interplay of micro-practices that enact power and Mumby (2005)
power and resistance resistance, often with the aim of transforming existing
structures and power relationships
. Micro-practices simultaneously resist and reproduce Zoller (2014)
dominant discourses, thus blurring the distinction
between power and resistance
Paradoxical practices in . Comparing focal organizations with their environments Cooper (1986)
constituting organizational . Contrasting old and new work arrangements
forms . Examining contemporary discourses in light of historical
ones
Continued
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Examining multiple tensions . Contradictions become interwoven with each other in Baxter (2011)
and voices knots and families
. Multiple voices as a way to keep incommensurate Barge and Little (2002); Christensen et al. (2015)
positions in play
33 †
34 † The Academy of Management Annals
number of studies and ones that have widely different orientations, this section
in the article is longer than the other four reviews.
between opposing forces and an eventual rupture that negates the current
social order. This process draws from four principles: contradiction (i.e.,
incompatibilities embedded in social orders), social construction (i.e., people
constructing organizations from mundane tasks), totality (i.e., organizations
as complex, interrelated wholes), and praxis (i.e., consciousness of dialectical
exigencies; Benson, 1977; Langley & Sloan, 2011). Change occurs through a
thesis (e.g., a position or decision) that becomes challenged by an antithesis
and resolved through a synthesis or novel construction that differs from the
two. A synthesis then develops into a new thesis-antithesis relationship and
the dialectical process continues. Dialectical analysis entails a search for the
fundamental principles that account for the emergence and dissolution of
organizational orders (Benson, 1983).
Drawing from different features of this metatheory, process-based systems
views on the study of contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes have splintered
into widely different schools of thought.8 Yet, researchers typically embrace
three common assumptions, namely: (1) organizations are in states of becom-
ing; (2) they must deal with contradictory interests that cross multiple levels;
and (3) organizations aim for equilibrium or a balance between the push-
pulls of opposing forces. Even though this work covers a vast array of
topics,9 the majority of it focuses on organizational change and innovation.
Thus, in the interest of brevity and coherence, this review focuses on the
role of contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in the organizational change
literature. In doing so, it extends yet differs from Langley and Sloan’s (2011)
chapter on dialectics in organizational change.10
Overview of Research
This section aims to decipher the roles that dualism, dialectics, contradiction,
and paradox play in the process-based literature on organizational change and
innovation. As such, it highlights three key dimensions of the constitutive view:
developmental actions, namely, how tensions evolve over time in the change
process; how multiple levels and tensions enter into this process; and praxis,
how actors’ awareness or consciousness of contradictions becomes a factor
in responding to them. As such, this literature falls into four broad categories:
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 35
(1) duality theory as replacing dualisms, (2) dialectics as motors of change and
innovation, (3) contradictions as paths to institutional change, and (4) para-
doxes and contradictions as recursive patterns of change (see Table 7). Prac-
titioners also employ contradictions in organizational development, and this
topic will be covered in the section on managing and responding to paradoxes.
change process (Bartunek, 1984; Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985). Engaging
with contradictions, then, was closely tied to developing activity systems.
Process Outcomes
Four types of process outcomes surfaced in this body of literature, namely, vir-
tuous and vicious cycles, double binds and inertia, unintended consequences,
and transforming organizational systems. As self-reinforcing spirals, virtuous
cycles resulted in learning and creativity and stemmed from becoming aware
of tensions (Haddadj, 2006), engaging in praxis (Delbridge & Edwards, 2013;
Koene, 2006; Seo & Creed, 2002), developing paradoxical thinking (Lüscher
& Lewis, 2008; Smith & Tushman, 2005), attending to competing demands
simultaneously (Carlo et al., 2012), and adopting regular intervals of stability
and change (Klarner & Raisch, 2013).
Vicious cycles, in contrast, set off spirals of behavioral and structural con-
tradictions that escalated out of control (Das & Kumar, 2010; Jarzabkowski
et al., 2013). These patterns emanated from mixed messages linked to blocking
acceptable alternatives (Engeström & Sannino, 2011), secondary
40 † The Academy of Management Annals
change efforts were often paradoxical, resulting in the opposite of what was
intended (De Cock & Rickards, 1996; Doyle, Claydon, & Buchanan, 2000).
In particular, unintended consequences stemmed from leadership issues, for
example, top managers who initiated change but failed to monitor or intervene
during the implementation stage (Meyer, 2006); planned change that created
order for executives and disorder for employees (McKinley & Scherer, 2000);
CEOs who developed paradoxical situations among stakeholders in response
to institutional contradictions (Stoltzfus et al., 2011); and managerial actions
that favored one pole over the other (e.g., cooperation and competition; Das
& Teng, 2000; Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004).
Unanticipated consequences also occurred from contradictions that
appeared on one plane and displaced changes on another (Abdallah et al.,
2011); collective interpretations of change that contradicted the aims of the
process (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002; Jian, 2007b), and swift adoption of
changes among actors at one level that contradicted fundamental organiz-
ational values (Cho et al., 2007; Grimes & Cornwall, 1987).
Several studies reported that contradictions and paradoxes fostered trans-
formation, particularly through engaging oppositional views in effective con-
frontation and synthesis (Bartunek, 1984), developing a collaborative set of
interactions that transcended contradictions (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt,
2009), and generating novel creations or the idea of a “thirdness” that goes
beyond transcending opposites (Engeström & Sannino, 2011).
Overall, process-oriented systems studies make three key contributions to a
constitutive view of paradoxes. First, process studies by definition are develop-
mental and thus move traditional research on organizational paradoxes to
ongoing evolution of actions. Developmental actions are embedded in dialec-
tics as motors of change; chart the path for institutional change; and serve as
recursive patterns that shape the rhythms, intervals, and flows of the change
process. Nesting contradictions in multiple levels, a second contribution, is a
hallmark of the systems perspective. Yet, with the exception of activity theor-
ists, multiple levels function primarily as a backdrop for embedded contradic-
tions. Activity theorists, in contrast, focus directly on multiple systems levels
(e.g. central systems, organizational-societal) and multiple tensions (i.e.,
primary and secondary). For the most part, nesting contradictions in multiple
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 41
Structuration Studies
Historical Foundations
In contrast to process studies in the systems tradition, structuration research
focuses on the relationship between systems and structures grounded in
socio-historic processes, especially in the actions and interactions that
produce and reproduce systems (i.e., groups, organizations, institutions) and
structures (Giddens, 1979, 1984). In structuration, actors engage in systems
production by drawing on structures to act in meaningful ways; they reproduce
systems through actions and interactions that maintain broad structural prin-
ciples (McPhee et al., 2014). Structures are both the medium and the outcome
of organizing and contradictions emerge from structural properties (i.e., rules,
resources, norms) that contravene or oppose one another in systems develop-
ment (Whittington, 1992). In the process of structuration, systems often live in
tension with the contradictory structures that oversee them (Howard & Geist,
1995).
Structuration studies differ from process-based systems research in examin-
ing how contradictions intertwine recursively in systems development. While
contradictions form the “fault lines” for conflict, unlike dialectics as motors
of change, they do not necessarily lead to active struggles, especially if they
are multiple, dispersed, and repressed (Putnam, 2013). Similar to activity
theory, structuration scholars view primary and secondary contradictions as
critical to social change in that actions taken in processing them reproduce
or break from socio-historic patterns (Giddens, 1984).
Overview of Research
All five dimensions of the constitutive approach play a vital role in structura-
tion studies. Specifically, contradictions emanate discursively and developmen-
tally from actions and interactions in the production and reproduction of
42 † The Academy of Management Annals
tions in structuration studies falls into three main categories: (1) interfacing
primary and secondary contradictions, (2) penetrating multiple systems and
historic periods, and (3) negotiating dialectics of control in power relationships
(see Table 7).
(Golden, Kirby, & Jorgenson, 2006). In the latter case, Kirby and Krone (2002)
discovered that even though organizations offered flexible work arrangements
to employees, contradictions that emerged in interactions about work assign-
ments, performance evaluations, and work group norms often deterred indi-
viduals from using them.
Research also revealed how organizational members (re)produced contra-
dictions in team, organizational, and institutional levels. For example,
Sydow, Lerch, Huxham, and Hibbert (2011) found that teams instantiated con-
tradictions in organizational systems through simultaneously disclosing and
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
were situated; strategies were often met with counterstrategies; and social posi-
tioning was negotiated relative to others (McPhee et al., 2014).
As an example, being aware of contradictions influenced employees’
responses to change as they negotiated the dialectic of control in a corporate
merger (Howard & Geist, 1995). Specifically, employees who had discursive
awareness of their situation felt empowered and responded through construct-
ing a new space or zone of autonomy while actors who had limited conscious-
ness of the contradictions in the merger felt powerless, estranged, and betrayed.
Heightened awareness of contradictions made it possible for partners in a joint
venture to negotiate autonomy and control in profit appropriations by creating
complementary incentives to uphold their agreement (Coad & Glyptis, 2014).
A budgetary reform process in a UK educational system also illustrated the
dialectic of control in that local players had short term success while the central
government altered the rules to increase their long term power (Seal & Ball,
2011). Local players lacked practical consciousness of the dialectic and failed
to realize that negotiating budgetary rules in one cycle produced a different
set of rules for the next cycle. In effect, focusing on the dialectic of control
made consciousness of contradictions central to negotiating power. As such,
it filled an important vacuum; however, often at the loss of being able to
unpack the ways that contradictions spread across multiple systems.
Process outcomes
Through examining the role of contradictions in producing systems, these
studies illustrated how process outcomes emerged from ongoing actions and
interactions. Even though vicious cycles, double binds (e.g., negative spirals
in managed care; Nicotera et al., 2010), and unintended consequences (e.g.,
studies of downsizing; Fairhurst et al., 2002) surfaced in these studies,13 the
majority of findings focused on how contradictions enabled or constrained
future actions.
Importantly, praxis played a key role in how contradictions enabled future
actions; namely, consciousness of contradictions and power relationships (i.e.,
especially discursive and practical awareness) enabled actors to negotiate
autonomy and dependence (Coad & Glyptis, 2014), create a personal zone
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 45
during a merger (Howard & Geist, 1995), regain flexibility in managing the
connectivity paradox (Leonardi et al., 2010), and openly engage colleagues in
policy deliberations (Canary, 2010a). In contrast, ongoing processes con-
strained actors when they exhibited limited consciousness of contradictions
(Seal & Ball, 2011) or viewed them as embedded in interwoven systems that
were impossible to penetrate (e.g., in supervisory practices, meritocracy cri-
teria, institutional regulations, and societal expectations; Kirby & Krone,
2002; Olufowote, 2008; Sherblom et al., 2002).
Structuration studies embody the dimensions of a constitutive view and
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Critical Studies
Historical Foundations
Even though the critical tradition has not generated as much empirical research
on contradiction as the other paradigms, its theoretical contributions inform
other perspectives. Clearly, Giddens (1979) drew on critical theory by ground-
ing contradictions in primary tensions of capitalism and in the dialectic of
control. Scholars who employ Hegel’s (1969) view of dialectics as struggles
between opposing forces also tap into contributions drawn from critical
studies. Yet, in contrast to other views, contradiction in critical studies forms
the foundation of an inherent struggle between private ownership (i.e., econ-
omic relationships) and socialized production in which capitalism masks the
extraction of surplus value from workers and leads to concentrating power
in owners and managers (Marx, 1906). For critical scholars, this struggle
infuses class conflicts, instantiates incompatibilities between management
46 † The Academy of Management Annals
Overview of Research
Four dimensions of the constitutive view typify studies that embrace a critical
lens. First, contradictions develop in and through political processes of discur-
sive translation; that is, ways of translating routine organizational activities into
material (commodity values) and symbolic (capitalist ideology) outcomes that
reproduce systems of control. These processes occur through language and dis-
cursive patterns that make fundamental contradictions appear opaque, subtle,
and natural (Deetz, 1992). Second, similar to structuration, a critical lens
reclaims the socio-historical context of contradictions in organizational life as
well as their developmental or evolutionary processes linked to tension man-
agement outcomes. Third, a critical lens is multilevel in that individual
action is always constrained by the collective action of a dominant few.
Fourth, praxis not only refers to an awareness of contradictions, but also to
the effects of power that underlie oppositional struggles. It calls for a critical
reflexivity that is uncommon in the practitioner literature (Cunliffe, 2004),
one that moves from individuals to developing a collective consciousness.
Research that embraces a critical lens focuses on two categories: (1) contradic-
tions as masking ideology and control and (2) resisting the dominant structure
through dialectics and dialogue (see Table 7).
Resisting the dominant culture through dialectics and dialogue. Actors that
engaged in an ongoing struggle over meaning, however, provided an opportu-
nity for participants to surface ideologies and resist dominant cultures, as
Rusaw (2000) and Lorenzo-Molo and Udani (2013) advocated. Specifically,
reflecting on contradictory moments—especially ones that revealed false
assumptions about unquestioned practices, irrationality in defending unjust
actions, and the role of authority in legitimating informal practices—led to out-
comes that helped employees. This process also occurred through engaging in
dialogue or interactions that paired experiences with theory-practice dispar-
ities, reclaimed taboo meanings, and engaged in resourceful sensemaking
(Carr, 2000b; Wright & Manning, 2004). In this way, leaders worked within
capitalist modes of production by questioning them, thereby creating a work-
able “critical performativity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012). In studies of contradic-
tions that masked ideologies, theory and practice were inseparable and the
48 † The Academy of Management Annals
interplay among them was necessary to discern opportunities and develop col-
lective action to resist the dominant culture.
Process Outcomes
Three primary process outcomes aligned with the critical lens. The first two
involved reproducing existing structures and practices and, by implication,
closing down participation, as demonstrated in the masking of ideology and
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Postmodern Studies
Historical Foundations
A postmodern approach examines contradictions that emerge in the ongoing
dynamics of power, control, and resistance in organizations. Although scholars
sometimes combine tenets of both critical theory and postmodernism, the two
metatheoretical traditions differ notably in their treatment of contradictions
and paradoxes. In particular, the two perspectives diverge in the central
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 49
Overview of Research
Postmodern studies exhibit all five dimensions of a constitutive approach to
contradictions and paradoxes, but this work, perhaps more than any other
50 † The Academy of Management Annals
butes, etc.); hence, tensions and contradictions are often a byproduct of mul-
tiple voices that enter into organizational contexts. In many cases, these
constructs appear in and across different organizational levels and different
relationships. Scholars also make connections that link local tensions to
global contradictions and paradoxes, thus, aligning micro-discursive struggles
with macro-Discourses. This review of postmodern studies focuses on three
categories of work: (1) tensions in negotiating multiple identities; (2) dialectics
as the interplay of power and resistance; and (3) paradoxical practices in con-
stituting organizational forms (see Table 7).
(Garrety, Badham, Morrigan, Rifkin, & Zanko, 2003; Lynch, 2009; Real &
Putnam, 2005; Ruud, 2000; Townsley & Geist, 2000). For example, Lynch
(2009) studied how professional chefs in hotel kitchens used humor as both
formal and informal control. Whereas supervisors employed humor to
control the chefs, chefs relied on humor to strengthen in-group identities
and cultivate both covert and overt resistance to managerial control. In
effect, tensions in the ongoing process of negotiating identities often arose in
the face of contradictory views of subjectivity. Individuals managed these ten-
sions through negotiating their roles in ways that both complied and resisted
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
the new mandates while reaffirming their control through treating the require-
ments as individual choices and reframing the role of teams as how “modern
men” get people to work for them. Thus, as these studies revealed, the dialectic
of power and resistance played out in complex ways, sometimes leading to
empowerment and transformation, but at other times affirming control
through blurring the boundaries between the poles. Struggles over meaning
then often reaffirmed rather than transformed existing power relationships.
Process Outcomes
Postmodern studies also revealed three different types of process outcomes
aligned with responses to tensions, dialectics, and paradoxes.17 In particular,
this research highlighted how actors engaged in discursive activities that
opened up new possibilities for participation, such as ethical communication
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 53
Thyssen, 2015; Clair, 1997; Fletcher, 2004; Fyke & Buzzanell, 2013; O’Connor,
1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). For example, Fyke and Buzzanell’s (2013)
research uncovered the paradoxical dynamics of training leaders to consider
multiple perspectives and meanings while developing the skills of “conscious
capitalism.” Attempts to open up participation then paradoxically closed off
possibilities to create dialogue and to recognize the contradictions between
mindfulness and capitalism.
Postmodern work also disclosed how the dynamics of power and resistance
might transform organizational structures and/or reproduce the status quo. In
particular, several investigations identified resistance strategies that trans-
formed undesirable organizational structures into different realities (Kan &
Parry, 2004; Liu & Buzzanell, 2004; MacKenzie, 2008; Murphy, 1998, 2003;
Pal & Buzzanell, 2013; Putnam, 2004; Spicer & Sewell, 2010), especially
through simultaneously resisting and reproducing existing structures and
dominant narratives (Denis, Dompierre, Langley, & Rouleau, 2011; Groscurth,
2011; Markham, 1996; McClellan, 2011; Trethewey, 2001). Taken together, this
work revealed both reproduction and transformation as process outcomes,
suggesting that the dynamics of power and resistance were closely tied to the
dialectic of stability and change.
In summary, the postmodern approach makes several contributions to the
work on contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. First, it foregrounds the dia-
lectic of power and resistance through uncovering how contradictory forces
and resultant tensions emanate from their dynamic interplay. Second, it privi-
leges discourse as a central driver of these constructs since tensions not only
emerge out of language and social interactions but also enter into the ways
that social interactions enable and constrain organizational actors, sometimes
simultaneously. Third, postmodern studies underscore the indeterminate
nature of contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes, as organization members
negotiate competing identities at multiple levels in the midst of the ongoing
dynamics of power and resistance.
Finally, this work shows how the shifting of power relationships opens up
possibilities for organizational actors to reorient contradictions in ways that
grant them agency. In many cases, this process involves creating new meanings
that allow actors autonomy and freedom in constructing their identities and
54 † The Academy of Management Annals
creating control over their work lives. Yet, scholars who work within this
metatheoretical tradition often place undue emphasis on discourse and
neglect the material world that mediates and constrains the symbolic. Research
then needs more attention to the objects, bodies, spaces, and places in which
discourse interfaces with materiality in negotiating identities and shaping
organizational forms (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2014).
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Overview of Research
Studies that employ relational dialectics focus on the interplay of opposing
forces, thus contradiction is the modus operandi of this work (Baxter & Mon-
tgomery, 1996). Relational dialectics embraces four dimensions of the consti-
tutive view. First, it adopts a discourse lens; that is, it examines the ways that
dialectics and tensions emerge in a clash of discourses over meaning.
Second, discourses are grounded socio-historically in meaning systems rooted
in time and history (Collier, 2009; Harter, 2004; Iedema, Degeling, Braithwaite,
& White, 2004; Jenkins & Dillon, 2012; Thatcher, 2011).
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 55
travel alone; rather they come in multiples that are capable of forming knots
or becoming interwoven in bundles (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery,
1996). Finally, this approach focuses on the ways that organizational actors
manage dialectics across multiple individual and community levels.
Research that embraces relational dialectics covers a remarkably wide range
of organizational topics (e.g., leadership, community building, health care
management, collaboration, organizational change, racial disparity, sexual har-
assment, and technology use).19 These articles form two clusters that focus on:
(1) identifying and managing dialectics and (2) examining multiple tensions
and voices (see Table 7).
Examining multiple tensions and voices. Other studies examined the ways
that contradictions became interwoven with each other (Driskill et al., 2012;
Iedema et al., 2004) or formed knots (Norton & Sadler, 2006; Sheep et al., in
press; Sheep & Fairhurst, 2015). To illustrate, Norton and Sadler (2006) exam-
ined the knotted tensions that arose in a community planning process wrought
by an ideological conflict, different views regarding traditional practices, and
the introduction of outsiders who highlighted old versus new ways of organiz-
ing. Similarly, in their study of innovation in the print industry, Sheep et al. (in
press) found that actors discursively constructed multiple tensions that cast
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Process Outcomes
Studies that embraced relational dialectics reported three types of process out-
comes. Given the focus of this tradition on dialogue, the most logical process
outcome was the way that tensions opened up or closed off participation. For
example, studies that identified dialectics of closeness-distance (McGuire,
2006; McNamee & Peterson, 2014); impartiality-favoritism (Sias et al., 2004);
inclusion-exclusion (Barge et al., 2008); individual-collective (Erhardt &
Gibbs, 2014; Lewis et al., 2010); diversity-unity (Kellett, 1999); and
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 57
Either-Or Responses
Either-or approaches treat contradictory poles as distinct phenomena that
function independent of each other and fit into three broad areas: (1) defensive
reactions and mechanisms, (2) selection or privileging of one pole, and (3) sep-
aration or segmentation.
Both-And Responses
Both-and responses differ from either-or approaches through treating oppo-
sites as inseparable and interdependent (Smith & Lewis, 2011). In this category,
organizational members avoid segmenting opposites or privileging one pole
60 † The Academy of Management Annals
over the other. The literature reveals three types of both-and approaches: (1)
paradoxical thinking, (2) vacillation or spiraling inversion, and (3) integration
and balance.
Selection . Focuses on coping with paradox, neutralizes tensions . Choosing one pole over the other
Seo et al. (2004) . Common response for time pressures and contextual . Favoring or privileging one pole
constraints
. Loses synergy in the tensions between the poles
Separation . Source splitting—dividing tensions and assigning them to . De-coupling opposites through structural,
Baxter and Montgomery different people or units temporal, or functional separation
(1996) . Keeping poles separate and independent . Structural ambidexterity
Poole and Van de Ven . Focuses on acceptance and living with paradox
(1989) . Creates power imbalances, increases stress, and negative
Seo et al. (2004) reactions
. Closes off options and opportunities; loss of synergy
†
Continued
61
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 8 (Continued)
62
Categories of Responses Definitions and Distinctive Features Enacting Responses
†
The Academy of Management Annals
II. Both-And Approaches
Paradoxical Thinking . Increasing cognitive abilities to recognize and reflect on . Seeking valued differences between poles
Smith and Lewis (2011) paradoxes . Reducing anxiety and fear
. Aims to expose latent tensions
. Focuses on fostering comfort and openness to paradoxes
. Targets individual abilities
Vacillation/Spiraling . Oscillating between opposite poles . Incremental or radical shift between poles at
Inversion . Focusing on segmenting then connecting poles different times
Baxter and Montgomery . Can disintegrate into separation . Vacillating between phases and sequences
(1996) . Can lead to spiraling inversion or a perpetual oscillation
Seo et al. (2004) between poles without moving forward
Poole and Van de Ven
(1989)
Integration and Balance . Compromises tensions through a forced merger . Develops a middle ground between the poles
Baxter and Montgomery . Casts opposite poles in a zero-sum relationship . Seeks balance or an equilibrium point
(1996) . Brings poles together but neutralizes tensions . Aligns with steady state systems and equilibrium
Seo et al. (2004) . Focuses on meeting competing demands models
Smith and Lewis (2011) . Often results in temporary or unstable responses
. Not necessarily effective for complex systems
Continued
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Table 8 (Continued)
Categories of Responses Definitions and Distinctive Features Enacting Responses
III. More-Than Approaches
Connection, Third Spaces, . Focuses on the dynamic interplay of opposites; . Locating a discursive site to engage paradox and
and Dialogue seeks energy from tensions contradiction
. Develops new space or zone of ambiguity . Develops collaborative dialogue among
Janssens and Steyaert (1999)
. Treats opposites as equally valued, interdependent and stakeholders
Barge (2006)
intertwined with each other . Juxtaposes opposites in conversation
. Engages in multi-stakeholder learning . Engages multiple voices to privilege differences
. Requires time, skill, and expertise
Reflective Practice and . Using tensions to open meanings and develop options . Engaging in trial and error exploration
Serious Playfulness . Engaging in purposeful action driven by emotions . Enacts reflective positioning
Huxham and Beech (2003) rather than rational arguments . Engages in humor, irony, and play
Barge et al. (2008) . Challenges normal boundaries
63 †
64 † The Academy of Management Annals
and offering temporary actions for meeting immediate needs. On the down
side, vacillation can disintegrate into either-or choices; integration can resur-
face contradictions (Seo et al., 2004); and balance embodies assumptions
about equilibrium that may not be easily attainable or desirable. Thus, although
both-and approaches are efficient in the short-term, they are not necessarily an
effective long-term strategy for managing organizational paradoxes. The issue
in responding to contradictions, then, may not be one of resolving, coping, or
even managing them, but rather one of finding ways to seek energy from ten-
sions and sustain the ongoing interplay between opposites (Clegg, Cunha, &
Cunha, 2002; Huxham & Beech, 2003; Janssens & Steyaert, 1999).
More-Than Responses
A third major approach to addressing paradoxes focuses on connecting oppo-
sitional pairs, moving outside of them, or situating them in a new relationship.
Smith (2014) and Lewis and Smith (2014) refer to this approach as accommo-
dating both poles through developing a novel, creative synergy that character-
izes “Janusian thinking” (Rothenberg, 1979). Drawing from the literature, this
category consists of three clusters: (1) reframing and transcendence (Abdallah
et al., 2011; Bartunek, 1988; Ford & Backoff, 1988), (2) connecting, third
spaces, and dialogue (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999; Seo et al., 2004), and (3) reflec-
tive practice and serious play (Huxham & Beech, 2003).
wicked, paradoxical problems (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, 2015). Yet, engaging in
dialogue requires time and skill that is often difficult for organizational
members, particularly without the aid of third parties.
Methods
To examine contradictions and paradoxes, constitutive scholars often use
grounded theory, particularly in deciphering content themes that emerge in
interviews and mixed-method studies (Charmaz, 2014; Kirby & Krone, 2002;
Liu & Buzzanell, 2004). Other investigators employ ethnographic and case
70 † The Academy of Management Annals
& Dunford, 2002); and the role of linguistic repertoires in revealing clashes
in power, identity, or relationships (Ashcraft, 2005; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte,
2013; Ruud, 2000). Putnam and Fairhurst (2001, 2014) review ten different
approaches to organizational discourse analysis and indicate how language pat-
terns, texts, arguments, and narrative, to name a few, could be used to identify
types of tensions, how they work together, and how organizational members
respond to them. Researchers who employ these methods focus on what the
discourse is doing, not what it represents (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Employing different types of discourse methods also allows researchers to
cross multiple organizational levels and to interface individual and institutional
patterns through language-in-use and linguistic repertoires (Fairclough, 1995,
2005). Discourse methods introduce greater complexity and precision in the
analysis of talk, which often serves as the primary source of data for under-
standing how actors align tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes. For
example, Sheep et al. (in press) identify multiple tensions based on how
actors’ combine them as lay ontologies (Calori, 2002). Discourse methods
then allow researchers to focus on multiple tensions and multiple voices as
they emerge within organizational processes.
Discourse analysis also aids in identifying how organizational actors
embrace tensions and respond to contradictions and paradoxes. Specifically,
Jameson (2004) employed dialectical analysis to show how anesthesiologists
and nurses transcended role contradictions and held both autonomy and con-
nectedness together through rotating supervision. In like manner, studies that
focus on humor and irony demonstrated how these discursive practices were
used to reframe oppositional struggles and reveal alternatives for responding
to contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes (Butler & Modaff, 2008; Hatch,
1997; Jarzabkowski & Lê, in press; Martin, 2004).
Future Directions
To build on this lens, we propose three areas for future development: (1) shar-
pening the focus on time, (2) rethinking the role of rationality and emotionality
in contradictions, and (3) exploring the interplay between order and disorder.
The issue of time is critical to the developmental dimension of the constitutive
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 71
relatively few exceptions (Apker et al., 2005; Considine & Miller, 2010;
Garrety et al., 2003; Jenkins & Conley, 2007; Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010;
Vince & Broussine, 1996), researchers treat paradoxes in a rational, objective
manner. Rational approaches are evident in such practices as: isolating single
tensions and ignoring how they intensify as they interface with other contra-
dictions (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993), treating opposing forces in dialectical
studies as very systematic and objective (Costanzo & Di Domenico, 2015),
stressing general rules-of-thumb for managing leadership tensions (Denison,
Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995), and viewing ambidexterity as a normative solution
to paradox (Im & Rai, 2014). These practices, while commonplace, reflect a bias
for rational solutions and for shoving emotion into the background of paradox
research.
Investigations that focus on emotions in contradictory situations under-
score their direct link to workplace stress, burnout, and turnover. Specifically,
research shows that a continual oscillation between poles intensifies feelings of
anger and frustration (Apker et al., 2005; Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010), par-
ticularly as multiple tensions amplify and attenuate one another. Moreover,
suppression of emotions in contradictory circumstances also ties to stress
and burnout. For instance, in a study of efforts to modernize the UK edu-
cational system, both teachers and parents managed contradictions between
centralized and decentralized systems and being involved versus professionally
detached through suppressing anger, frustration, and fear (Jenkins & Conley,
2007). Organizational actors who feigned positive emotions experienced high
levels of stress and burnout while teachers who embraced emotional dexterity
(i.e., switching among a range of emotions) effectively navigated contradictions
between market and social welfare policies.
As these studies suggest, a constitutive lens treats emotions as expressed in
and through discourse. Instead of eliding or suppressing feelings, this approach
aims to capture emotional expressions through interrogating tone of voice,
rapid speech patterns, facial expressions, gesturing, and other bodily signs of
tension, anxiety, or frustrations. An over-reliance on interview transcripts pri-
vileges speech content and marginalizes emotions by ignoring how they reside
in bodily performances. Focusing on expressed emotions captures the commu-
nicative framing of tensions, the interplay of the emotional with the rational,
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 73
and the value and moral commitments that underlie contradictions (Shotter &
Tsoukas, 2014).
In addition to rethinking the relationship between emotions and rationality,
paradox scholars need to embrace disorder and its interplay with order. Studies
of paradoxes typically reflect a bias for order or for focusing on how to resume
equilibrium in the managing of tensions and contradictions. This bias pre-
sumes that contradictions need to be resolved or effectively managed to
restore the status quo to a sense of predictability. When organizational
actors ground this preference for order in rationality; disorder becomes a devi-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Conclusion
At the beginning of this article, we asked what we could learn about organiz-
ational paradoxes and contradictions through examining research that
embraces a process-driven, constitutive approach. Our response to this ques-
tion entails three observations that cross the different metatheoretical tra-
ditions. First, this literature underscores the pervasiveness of paradoxes
across multiple levels, tensions, and voices in ways that call for requisite
variety in developing theories and models. This variety needs to match the
complexities evident in recursive cycles, movement of tensions within and
across levels, constraints between primary and secondary contradictions,
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 75
knotted and bundled tensions, and struggles over meaning. It suggests moving
away from determinant, equilibrium models and investigating ways that
organizational actors draw on disequilibrium to open options for responding
to tensions in different ways.
A second observation centers on the role of power across this literature.
Importantly, scholars have challenged the notion of overt power struggles
that stem from Hegelian views of dialectics and embraced views of power as
continuous, both enabling and constraining, and intertwined with resistance.
Thus, the operations of power have moved away from the outcome of manifest
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
conflicts to focus on ways that power surfaces in the continual interplay of ten-
sions over time. Two process outcomes, opening up participation and trans-
forming existing systems, are closely tied to power and merit concerted
investigation in the paradox and contradiction literature.
A third observation stems from the typology of different ways to respond to
organizational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. This typology suggests
that actors need to develop a repertoire of responses and know when particular
approaches might be sub-optimal. Given the importance of praxis in this litera-
ture, actors also need to focus on ways to develop deep levels of critical reflex-
ivity and collective consciousness, not just a superficial awareness of
contradictions.
This goal to enhance reflexivity has plenty of fodder from the increasing tur-
bulence in today’s organizational environments and as tensions, contradic-
tions, dialectics, and paradoxes become the order of the day. The
metatheoretical diversity presented in this article, along with our suggestions
for future directions, aims to meet the requisite variety of the new normal
that today’s organizations face. The prospect of developing a meta-perspective
with multiple theoretical approaches will continue to drive research on organ-
izational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes for decades to come.
Notes
1. Farjourn (2010) presents a critique of the work on exploration and exploitation as
rooted in strict dualisms rather than conceived as a duality. By casting the two
concepts as clear-cut dichotomies rather than contradictions, this work presumes
discrete practices between binaries.
2. A discourse approach differs from a transmission model of communication that
highlights message exchange and information sharing. Also, in this work, the
process of developing meanings in routine interactions differs from the typical
use of the term sensemaking, which is often linked to individual cognitions in
the paradox literature.
3. Research reveals that organizational actors have at least partial knowledge of para-
doxical events through their awareness of latent tensions (Chreim, 2005; Hatch,
1997; Stoltzfus, Stohl, & Seibold, 2011).
76 † The Academy of Management Annals
4. An alternative way to conduct this review would be to cluster studies that focused
on one of the particular constructs, for example, contradictions, paradoxes, and
dialectics. However, multiple reviews already exist on organizational paradoxes
(Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Kelemen, 2002; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis,
2011) and organizational dialectics (Langley & Sloan, 2011) and no reviews to
date cross different constructs or multiple paradigms. Moreover, all four con-
structs surface in the literature that adopts processed-based studies of actions,
interactions, and practices over time.
5. The 30 topic areas include careers; conflict and unions; decision making; emotions
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
and compassionate work; ethics and corporate social responsibility; gender and
diversity; globalization/intercultural; identity; innovation and creativity; institutional
theory, change and entrepreneurship; interorganizational collaborations; knowledge
management; leadership and management; organizational change; organizational
culture; organizational effectiveness; organizational learning; organizational net-
works; organizational theory; participation and organizational democracy; power,
resistance, and control; risk and risk management; socialization; social movements
and collective action; strategy and strategic management; teams and groups; technol-
ogy and information systems; work-life; and workplace relationships. Based on key
words and the focus of studies, coders often placed articles in more than one category.
Publications included theory and concept development, literature review and cri-
tique, empirical studies, and interventionist essays.
6. Developing any category scheme requires care in classifying publications, captur-
ing important distinctions, and contributing to the advancement of knowledge.
With a sample of 350 journal articles, books, and book chapters (see Table 5),
this classification was not an easy task. Our decision to organize this review
around the particular five metatheoretical traditions (i.e., process-based
systems, structuration, critical theory, postmodern, and relational dialectics)
was the outcome of considerable discussion among the authors regarding the
range of metatheories in this literature. As broad criteria, we considered: (1)
the prominence of the perspective in the publication, (2) differences in paradig-
matic assumptions, (3) variance in the treatment of constructs (e.g., their defi-
nitions, sources, loci, levels of analysis, etc.), and (4) the potential of the
metatheory to capture distinctions in the paradox literature. Our five categories
represent only one among several possible alternatives. However, we believe
they capture and pay tribute to the diversity of paradigmatic traditions that
characterize management and organizational studies writ large.
7. For discussions of Eastern and cross-cultural perspectives that ground contradic-
tions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational processes, see Bjerknes (1992),
Fang (2005, 2012), and McDonald (2011).
8. The schools of thought that fall into the tradition of process-based systems theory
include Hegelian dialectical theory, activity theory, process theories, evolutionary the-
ories, institutional theory, sensemaking theory, and paradox theory, to name a few.
9. Process-based systems approaches to the study of dialectics, paradoxes, and con-
tradictions encompass an array of topics, including leadership (Cunha, Kamoche,
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 77
& Cunha, 2003; Cunha, Rego, & Vaccaro, 2014; Manz, Anand, Joshi, & Manz,
2008); organizational structuring (Fombrun, 1986), organizational identities
and identification (Fiol, 2002; Kozica, Gebhardt, Muller-Seitz, & Kaiser, 2015;
Ladge, Clair, & Greenberg, 2012); organizational sustainability and risk
(Arjoon, 2006; Benn & Baker, 2009; Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014; Juanillo
& Scherer, 1995), corporate social responsibility and crisis planning (Castello &
Lozano, 2011; Pang, Cropp, & Cameron, 2006); organizational time (Cunha,
2004); formalization and interorganizational relationships (Vlaar, Van den
Bosch, & Volberda, 2007); and strategy and organizational performance (Bour-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
geois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Costanzo & Di Domenico, 2015; Ghemawat & Costa,
1993). These studies affirm the importance of paradoxes and contradictions in
processing complex issues, engaging multiple corporate stakeholders, negotiating
legitimacy, and buffering against uncertainty. In the research on information
technology, paradoxes of connectivity constitute the nature of virtual and tele-
work in ways that shape decision making processes, cultural norms, and the emer-
gence of new organizational forms (Bryson, 2008; Child & McGrath, 2001;
Drummond, 2008; Hedberg & Jönsson, 1978; Leonardi, Jackson, & Diwan,
2009; Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, & Jett, 2008).
10. See Langley and Sloan (2011) for a review of the work on dialectics and organ-
izational change. As a technique, dialectical inquiry was a type of organizational
intervention aimed at enhancing effective decision making in top management
teams (Bergadaà & Thiétart, 1997; Cosier, 1983; Cosier & Aplin, 1980; Kleist,
2013; Mason, 1969; Mason & Mitroff, 1979; Mitroff & Emshoff, 1979; Schweiger
& Sandberg, 1989; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Schweiger, Sandberg, &
Rechner, 1989; Schwenk, 1984, 1989). As a mantra, dialectics generated creative
synthesis between opposite poles (Harvey, 2014), developed innovative-suppor-
tive cultures (Khazanchi, Lewis, & Boyer, 2007), signaled wicked problems
(Stoppelenburg & Vermaak, 2008), and fostered contextual ambidexterity
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Im & Rai, 2014; Smith & Tushman, 2005). As
a narrative, dialectics served as a conceptual lens to describe and interpret
organizational change processes. Dialectics as critique parallels our treatment
of critical theory and postmodern studies on power relationships and
domination.
11. These new directions are not the same as trialectics, which is a logic of change
grounded in unity and attraction rather than in struggle or opposition (Ford &
Backoff, 1988; Ford & Ford, 1994, 1995). Trialectics works from discontinuous
change based on mutations while dialectics works from contradictions grounded
in continuous management of tensions (Carini, Palich, & Wagner, 1995).
12. The latent contradictions that set the stage for the role of dialectics in institutional
change are: (1) inefficiencies; that is, contradictions between performance and
market alternatives, (2) non-adaptability or contradictions in responding to
environmental jolts, (3) institutional incompatibilities that stem from deeply
held but opposite values, and (4) misaligned interests that develop from efforts
to meet opposing interests and demands (Seo & Creed, 2002).
78 † The Academy of Management Annals
the other through the practice of negation (Ford & Backoff, 1988). This review
by necessity glosses the tenets of critical theory and the distinctions between
Hegel’s (1969) and Marx’s (1906) uses of the dialectical method. For Hegel,
history progressed dialectically through thesis-antithesis leading to a synthesis
as a resolution to past struggles. Marx departed from this socio-historic
process through treating dialectics as a kind of truth barometer that required
consciousness of inherent contradictions to affect economic and structural
change.
15. Notably, although contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes are all frequently
cited in postmodern literature, a majority of studies opt for the term tension
to describe organizational actors’ experiences in dealing with struggles over
meaning.
16. This tradition examines a variety of topics from an array of theories, including
organizational culture (Badham, Garrety, Morrigan, Zanko, & Dawson, 2003;
Coupland, 2001; Henderson, 2003; Hodgson, 2004; Hylmö & Buzzanell, 2002;
Kan & Parry, 2004), participation and democracy (Groscurth, 2011; Koschmann
& Laster, 2011; Musson & Duberley, 2007; O’Connor, 1995; Stohl & Cheney,
2001), feminist theory (Ashcraft, 2005, 2006; Buzzanell & Liu, 2005; Fletcher,
2004; Ford, 2006; Katila & Merilainen, 2002; Mills, 2002; Sotirin & Gottfried,
1999; Townsley & Geist, 2000), postcolonial theory (Norander & Harter, 2011;
Pal & Buzzanell, 2013), and actor-network theory (Ahrens & Mollona, 2007),
among others.
17. Importantly, while postmodern research embodies the assumption that living out
the dialectic between power and resistance both enables and constrains action,
only a small number of investigations focus on this type of process outcome
(Ahrens & Mollona, 2007; Holmer-Nadesan, 1996; Putnam, 2004; Van den
Brink & Stobbe, 2009).
18. In communication, the initial focus on relational dialectics was in the study of
interpersonal relationships, specifically, how they develop, maintain themselves,
or deteriorate over time (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
19. See, for example, Apker, Propp, and Zabava Ford (2005); Barge, Lee, Maddux,
Nabring, and Townsend (2008); Bochantin (2014); Bridge and Baxter (1992);
Considine and Miller (2010); Dean and Oetzel (2014); Donohue, Pugh, and
Sabrie (2014); Driskill, Meyer, and Mirivel (2012); Erbert, Mearns, and Dena
(2005); Galanes (2009); Gibbs (2009); Jameson (2004); Jenkins and Dillon
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 79
(2012); Lewis, Isbell, and Koschmann (2010); McGuire (2006); McNamee and
Peterson (2014); Pitts, Fowler, Kaplan, Nussbaum, and Becker (2009); Putnam
et al. (2014); Sias, Heath, Perry, Silva, and Fix (2004); Thatcher (2011); Tracy
(2004); Zorn, Roper, and Richardson (2014).
References
Abdallah, C., Denis, J. L., & Langley, A. (2011). Having your cake and eating it too:
Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Developing tension: An agenda for applied
research on the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 32(2), 171 – 181. doi:10.1080/0090988042000178103
Badham, R., Garrety, K., Morrigan, V., Zanko, M., & Dawson, P. (2003). Designer
deviance: Enterprise and deviance in culture change programmes.
Organization, 10(4), 707 – 730. doi:10.1177/13505084030104001
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In
M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (pp.
259 – 422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.).
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Benn, S., & Baker, E. (2009). Advancing sustainability through change and innovation:
A co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 383– 397.
doi:10.1080/14697010903360574
Benson, J. K. (1973). The analysis of bureaucratic-professional conflict: Functional
versus dialectical approaches. Sociological Quarterly, 14(3), 376– 394. doi:10.
1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb00867.x
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(1), 1 –21. doi:10.2307/2391741
Benson, J. K. (1983). A dialectical method for the study of organizations. In G. Morgan
(Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 331– 346). Beverly Hills,
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
CA: SAGE.
Bergadaà, M., & Thiétart, R. A. (1997). Stradin: A strategic dynamic and interactive
decision-making process. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6(1), 61 – 75. doi:10.
1023/A:1008688508836
Berglund, J., & Werr, A. (2000). The invincible character of management consulting
rhetoric: How one blends incommensurates while keeping them apart.
Organization, 7(4), 633 – 655. doi:10.1177/135050840074008
Bisel, R. S. (2009). On a growing dualism in organizational discourse research.
Management Communication Quarterly, 22(4), 614– 638. doi:10.1177/
0893318908331100
Bjerknes, G. (1992). Dialectical reflection in information systems development.
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 55 – 77.
Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity
systems and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6),
863 – 884. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00470.x
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective
on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305– 337. doi:10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2009.01154.x
Bloodgood, J. M., & Chae, B. (2010). Organizational paradoxes: Dynamic shifting and
integrative management. Management Decision, 48(1), 85 – 104. doi:10.1108/
00251741011014472
Bochantin, J. E. (2014). “Long live the mensi-mob”: Communicating support online
with regards to experiencing menopause in the workplace. Communication
Studies, 65(3), 260– 280. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.811433
Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A constructivist perspec-
tive on organizations. Organization, 5(2), 217–232. doi:10.1177/
135050849852004
Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision process in high velocity
environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science,
34(7), 816 – 835. doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.7.816
Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates.
Western Journal of Communication, 56(3), 200– 225. doi:10.1080/
10570319209374414
Bryson, J. (2008). Dominant, emergent, and residual culture: The dynamics of organiz-
ational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(6), 743– 757.
doi:10.1108/09534810810915754
82 † The Academy of Management Annals
Carroll, B., & Nicholson, H. (2014). Resistance and struggle in leadership development.
Human Relations, 67(11), 1413–1436. doi:10.1177/0018726714521644
Carroll, L. A., & Arneson, P. (2003). Communication in a shared governance hospital:
Managing emergent paradoxes. Communication Studies, 54(1), 35 – 55. doi:10.
1080/10510970309363263
Castello, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through cor-
porate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11 – 29. doi:10.
1007/S10551-011-0770-8
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543 – 576. doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Davis, A. S., Maranville, S. J., & Obloj, K. (1997). The paradoxical process of organiz-
ational transformation: Propositions and a case study. In W. A. Pasmore & R.
W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
10, pp. 275 – 314). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Dean, M., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Physicians’ perspectives of managing tensions around
dimensions of effective communication in the emergency department. Health
Communication, 29(3), 257 – 266. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.743869
De Cock, C., & Rickards, T. (1996). Thinking about organizational change: Towards two
kinds of process intervention. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
4(3), 233 – 251. doi:10.1108/eb028850
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in com-
munication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking
Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207.
Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements
to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies,
34(7), 927 – 947. doi:10.1177/0170840613483805
Denhardt, R. B. (1981). Toward a critical theory of public organization. Public
Administration Review, 41(6), 628 – 635. doi:10.2307/975738
Denis, J. L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2011). Escalating indecision:
Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1), 225–
244. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0501
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward
a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science,
6(5), 524 – 540. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
Donohue, W. A., Pugh, F., & Sabrie, S. (2014). Somali piracy negotiations: Resolving the
paradoxes of extortionate transactions. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 7(3), 173 – 187. doi:10.1111/Ncmr.12033
Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanan, D. (2000). Mixed results, lousy process: The man-
agement experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management,
11(SI), S59– S80. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.11.s1.6
Driskill, G. W., Meyer, J., & Mirivel, J. C. (2012). Managing dialectics to make a differ-
ence: Tension management in a community-building organization.
Communication Studies, 63(2), 243– 261. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.634476
Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus paradox: An analysis of a totally destructive system.
Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 176– 184. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.
2000119
86 † The Academy of Management Annals
j.leaqua.2004.07.004
Florida, R. (2003). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure,
community, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Foldy, E. G. (2006). Dueling schemata: Dialectical sensemaking about gender. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 350 – 372. doi:10.1177/0021886306290309
Fombrun, C. J. (1986). Structural dynamics within and between organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 403 – 421. doi:10.2307/2392830
Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the
development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56 –
83. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00233.x
Ford, J. (2006). Discourses of leadership: Gender, identity and contradiction in a UK
public sector organization. Leadership, 2(1), 77–99. doi:10.1177/1742715006060654
Ford, J. D., & Backoff, R. H. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and
paradox. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation:
Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 81– 122).
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in
change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756–785. doi:10.5465/AMR.
1994.9412190218
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). Getting caught in our point of view: A response to
Carini and colleagues. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 785– 787.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.28081370
Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2008). Fear and loathing in harrogate, or a study of a confer-
ence. Organization, 15(2), 233 – 250. doi:10.1177/1350508407086582
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).
New York, NY: Pantheon.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature cor-
porations. California Management Review, 50(1), 94 – 120. doi:10.2307/
41166418
Fyke, J. P., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). The ethics of conscious capitalism: Wicked pro-
blems in leading change and changing leaders. Human Relations, 66(12), 1619–
1643. doi:10.1177/0018726713485306
Galanes, G. J. (2009). Dialectical tensions of small group leadership. Communication
Studies, 60(5), 409– 425. doi:10.1080/10510970903260228
Garrety, K., Badham, R., Morrigan, V., Rifkin, W., & Zanko, M. (2003). The use of per-
sonality typing in organizational change: Discourse, emotions and the reflexive
subject. Human Relations, 56(2), 211– 235. doi:10.1177/0018726703056002892
88 † The Academy of Management Annals
Haddadj, S. (2006). Paradoxical process in the organizational change of the CEO succes-
sion: A case study from France. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
19(4), 447 – 456. doi:10.1108/09534810610676653
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustain-
ability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames.
Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463– 487. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0341
Hancock, P., & Tyler, M. (2001). Managing subjectivity and the dialectic of self-con-
sciousness: Hegel and organization theory. Organization, 8(4), 565– 585. doi:10.
1177/135050840184002
Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional
innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864– 888. doi:10.5465/AMR.
2006.22527458
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). The unintended consequences of culture interven-
tions: A study of unexpected outcomes. British Journal of Management, 13(1),
31 – 49. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00221
Harter, L. M. (2004). Masculinity(s), the agrarian frontier myth, and cooperative ways of
organizing: Contradictions and tensions in the experience and enactment of
democracy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 89 – 118. doi:10.
1080/0090988042000210016
Harter, L. M., Scott, J. A., Novak, D. R., Leeman, M., & Morris, J. F. (2006). Freedom
through flight: Performing a counter-narrative of disability. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 34(1), 3 – 29. doi:10.1080/00909880500420192
Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group crea-
tivity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324– 343. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.
0224
Haslett, B. B. (2012). Communicating and organizing in context: The theory of structura-
tional interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a
management team. Organization Science, 8(3), 275– 288. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.3.275
Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1993). Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox
and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505– 526. doi:10.
1177/017084069301400403
Hedberg, B., & Jönsson, S. (1978). Designing semi-confusing information systems for
organizations in changing environments. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 3(1), 47 – 64. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(78)90006-5
Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). The philosophy of history (J. Sibree, Trans.). New York, NY:
Wiley.
90 † The Academy of Management Annals
Kan, M. M., & Parry, K. W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leader-
ship in overcoming resistance to change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 467– 491.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.003
Katila, S., & Merilainen, S. (2002). Metamorphosis: From ‘nice girls’ to ‘nice bitches’:
Resisting patriarchal articulations of professional identity. Gender, Work and
Organization, 9(3), 336 – 354. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00163
Kellett, P. M. (1999). Dialogue and dialectics in managing organizational change: The
case of a mission-based transformation. Southern Communication Journal,
64(3), 211 – 231. doi:10.1080/10417949909373135
Keough, C., & Lake, R. (1993). Values as structuring properties in contract negotiations.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
In C. Conrad (Ed.), The ethical nexus (pp. 171 – 189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kerosuo, H. (2011). Caught between a rock and a hard place: From individually experi-
enced double binds to collaborative change in surgery. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(3), 388 – 399. doi:10.1108/09534811111132767
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1978). The midcareer conundrum. Organizational Dynamics,
7(2), 45 – 62. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(78)90037-2
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational paradoxes: Clinical approaches to man-
agement. London: Tavistock Publications.
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M. W., & Boyer, K. K. (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The
impact of organizational values on process innovation. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(4), 871 – 884. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.003
Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it":
Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50 – 77. doi:10.1080/00909880216577
Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the beat–rhythms of change and firm perform-
ance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 160– 184. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.
0767
Kleist, C. (2013). Using Sartre’s critique of dialectical reason for managerial decision-
making. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 341– 352. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1266-x
Knights, D. (1997). Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender
and postmodernism revisited. Organization Studies, 18(1), 1 – 19. doi:10.1177/
017084069701800102
Knox, H., O’Doherty, D. P., Vurdubakis, T., & Westrup, C. (2015). Something hap-
pened: Spectres of organization/disorganization at the airport. Human
Relations, 68(6), 1001–1020. doi:10.1177/0018726714550257
Koene, B. A. S. (2006). Situated human agency, institutional entrepreneurship and insti-
tutional change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(3), 365– 382.
doi:10.1108/09534810610668364
Kolb, D. M. (1987). Corporate ombudsman and organization conflict resolution. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 31(4), 673– 691. doi:10.1177/0022002787031004007
Komporozos-Athanasiou, A., & Fotaki, M. (2015). A theory of imagination for organ-
ization studies using the work of Cornelius Castoriadis. Organization Studies,
36(3), 321 – 342. doi:10.1177/0170840614559258
Koschmann, M., & Laster, N. M. (2011). Communicative tensions of community orga-
nizing: The case of a local neighborhood association. Western Journal of
Communication, 75(1), 28 – 51. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.536965
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 93
Kozica, A. M. F., Gebhardt, C., Muller-Seitz, G., & Kaiser, S. (2015). Organizational
identity and paradox: An analysis of the “stable state of instability” of
Wikipedia’s identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(2), 186– 203. doi:10.
1177/1056492614553275
Kramer, M. W. (2004). Toward a communication theory of group dialectics: An ethno-
graphic study of a community theater group. Communication Monographs, 71(3),
311 – 332. doi:10.1080/0363452042000288292
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B. R., & Kataria, N. (2015). Elasticity
and the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together
while we are pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 981 – 1011.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0462
Kuhn, T. (2012). Negotiating the micro-macro divide: Thought leadership from organ-
izational communication for theorizing organization. Management
Communication Quarterly, 26(4), 543 – 584. doi:10.1177/0893318912462004
Kurian, P. A., Munshi, D., & Bartlett, R. V. (2014). Sustainable citizenship for a techno-
logical world: Negotiating deliberative dialectics. Citizenship Studies, 18(3– 4),
435 – 451. doi:10.1080/13621025.2014.905284
Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A., & Greenberg, D. (2012). Cross-domain identity transition during
liminal periods: Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during
pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1449– 1471. doi:10.5465/
amj.2010.0538
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management
Review, 24(4), 691– 710. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
Langley, A., & Sloan, P. (2011). Organizational change and dialectic processes. In D. M.
Boje, B. Brurnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational
change (pp. 261–275). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203810279.ch18
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of
change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and
flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1 – 13. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.4001
Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing perspectives on process organization
studies. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing:
Perspectives on process organization studies (pp. 1 – 26). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Larson, G. S., & Tompkins, P. K. (2005). Ambivalence and resistance: A study of man-
agement in a concertive control system. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 1 –
21. doi:10.1080/0363775052000342508
Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory approaches and para-
doxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Human Relations, 62(6),
795 – 827. doi:10.1177/0018726709104543
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2013). Contradiction as a medium and outcome of organ-
izational change: A Foucauldian reading. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 26(3), 556 – 572. doi:10.1108/09534811311328579
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing
new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111– 125.
doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009
Leonardi, P. M., Jackson, M. H., & Diwan, A. (2009). The enactment-externalization
dialectic: Rationalization and the persistence of counterproductive technology
94 † The Academy of Management Annals
CO;2-2
Markham, A. (1996). Designing discourse: A critical analysis of strategic ambiguity and
workplace control. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 389– 421.
doi:10.1177/0893318996009004002
Marsh, S., & Macalpine, M. (1999). The search for reconciling insights: A “really useful”
tool for managing paradox. Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 642–
651. doi:10.1108/02621719910293756
Martin, D. M. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the para-
doxes of organizational life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2),
147 – 170. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210034
Martin, D. R., O’Brien, J. L., Heyworth, J. A., & Meyer, N. R. (2008). Point counterpoint:
The function of contradictions on an interdisciplinary health care team.
Qualitative Health Research, 18(3), 369 – 379. doi:10.1177/1049732307311119
Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal
processes. American Scientist, 51(2), 164 – 179. doi:10.2307/27838689
Marx, K. (1906). Capital: A critique of political economy (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.
Vol. 1). New York, NY: Modern Library.
Mason, R. O. (1969). A dialectical approach to strategic planning. Management Science,
15(8), 403 – 414. doi:10.1287/mnsc.15.8.B403
Mason, R. O. (1996). Commentary on varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 5(3), 293 –299. doi:10.1177/105649269653015
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Assumptions of majestic metals: Strategy through
dialectics. California Management Review, 22(2), 80 – 88. doi:10.2307/41165323
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
30(1), 14 – 33. doi:10.2307/2392809
Mathiassen, L. (1998). Reflective systems development. Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems, 10(1), 67 – 118.
McClellan, J. G. (2011). Reconsidering communication and the discursive politics of
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 465– 480. doi:10.
1080/14697017.2011.630508
McDonald, P. (2011). Maoism versus Confucianism: Ideological influences on Chinese
business leaders. Journal of Management Development, 30(7/8), 632– 646. doi:10.
1108/02621711111150164
McGovern, P. (2014). Contradictions at work: A critical review. Sociology, 48(1), 20 – 37.
doi:10.1177/0038038512467711
McGuire, J. B. (1992). A qualitative analysis of dialectical processes in educational organ-
izations. Human Relations, 45(4), 387–410. doi:10.1177/001872679204500405
96 † The Academy of Management Annals
McGuire, T. (2006). “Paradoxing the dialectic": The impact of patients’ sexual harass-
ment in the discursive construction of nurses’ caregiving roles. Management
Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 416 – 450. doi:10.1177/0893318905280879
McKinlay, A. (2010). Performativity and the politics of identity: Putting Butler to work.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(3), 232– 242. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2008.01.
011
McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organiz-
ational restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 735 – 752. doi:10.
5465/AMR.2000.3707703
McNamee, L. G., & Peterson, B. L. (2014). Reconciling “third space/place": Toward a
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Ortu, C. (2008). The denial of class struggle by British governments in their anti-union
discourse (1978– 2007). Critical Discourse Studies, 5(4), 289– 301. doi:10.1080/
17405900802405155
Osborn, C. S. (1998). Systems for sustainable organizations: Emergent strategies, inter-
active controls and semi-formal information. Journal of Management Studies,
35(4), 481 – 509. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00106
Oswick, C., Putnam, L. L., & Keenoy, T. (2004). Tropes, discourse and organizing. In
D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational discourse (pp. 105 – 129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pal, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). Breaking the myth of Indian call centers: A postco-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Real, K., & Putnam, L. L. (2005). Ironies in the discursive struggle of pilots defending the
profession. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 91 –119. doi:10.1177/
0893318905276561
Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organization and management
studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42(8), 1621– 1644. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2005.00559.x
Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics
of innovation implementation. Organization Science, 13(2), 109– 127. doi:10.
1287/Orsc.13.2.109.535
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2001). Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (in press). Knots in the discourse of inno-
vation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies.
Sherblom, J. C., Keranen, L., & Withers, L. A. (2002). Tradition, tension, and transform-
ation: A structuration analysis of a game warden service in transition. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 30(2), 143 – 162. doi:10.1080/00909880216579
Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2014). In search of phronesis: Leadership and the art of judg-
ment. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 224– 243. doi:10.
5465/amle.2013.0201
Sias, P. M., Heath, R. G., Perry, T., Silva, D., & Fix, B. (2004). Narratives of workplace
friendship deterioration. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 321–
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
340. doi:10.1177/0265407504042835
Sison, M. D. (2010). Recasting public relations roles: Agents of compliance, control or
conscience. Journal of Communication Management, 14(4), 319– 336. doi:10.
1108/13632541011090437
Smith, A. C. T., & Graetz, F. (2006a). Complexity theory and organizing form dualities.
Management Decision, 44(7), 851 – 870. doi:10.1108/00251740610680569
Smith, A. C. T., & Graetz, F. (2006b). Organizing dualities and strategizing for change.
Strategic Change, 15(5), 231– 239. doi:10.1002/jsc.760
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict,
paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing
strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592– 1623.
doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0932
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equili-
brium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381– 403.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top man-
agement model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5),
522 – 536. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational inno-
vation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81 – 112. doi:10.2307/2666980
Sotirin, P., & Gottfried, H. (1999). The ambivalent dynamics of secretarial ‘bitching’:
Control, resistance, and the construction of identity. Organization, 6(1), 57 – 80.
doi:10.1177/135050849961003
Spicer, A., & Sewell, G. (2010). From national service to global player: Transforming the
organizational logic of a public broadcaster. Journal of Management Studies,
47(6), 913 – 943. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00915.x
Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic
change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495. doi:10.1002/
smj.4250160606
Steimel, S. J. (2010). Dialectical tensions experienced by resettled Sudanese refugees in
mediating organizations. International Journal of Communication, 4(1), 117– 138.
Stevenson, W. B., Bartunek, J. M., & Borgatti, S. P. (2003). Front and backstage processes
of an organizational restructuring effort. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
39(3), 243 – 258. doi:10.1177/0021886303258073
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices:
Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management
Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349 – 407. doi:10.1177/0893318901143001
104 † The Academy of Management Annals
Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C., & Seibold, D. R. (2011). Managing organizational change:
Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(3), 349 – 367. doi:10.1108/09534811111132749
Stoppelenburg, A., & Vermaak, H. (2008). Defixation as an intervention perspective:
Understanding wicked problems at the Dutch ministry of foreign affairs.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(1), 40– 54. doi:10.1177/1056492608329261
Sturdy, A. (1997). The dialectics of consultancy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
8(5), 511 – 535. doi:10.1006/cpac.1996.0119
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In
C. P. Smith, J. W. Atkinson, D. C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393 – 400). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Surman, E. (2002). Dialectics of dualism: The symbolic importance of the home/work
divide. Ephemera: Theory & politics in organization, 2(3), 209– 223.
Sutherland, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2011). Duality theory and the management of the
change-stability paradox. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(4), 534–
547. doi:10.1017/S1833367200001437
Sydow, J., Lerch, F., Huxham, C., & Hibbert, P. (2011). A silent cry for leadership:
Organizing for leading (in) clusters. Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 328– 343.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.008
Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. (2003). Knowledge, trust, and control: Managing tensions and
contradictions in a regional network of service firms. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 33(2), 69–99. doi:10.1080/00208825.2003.11043679
Symon, G., Buehring, A., Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2008). Positioning qualitative
research as resistance to the institutionalization of the academic labour process.
Organization Studies, 29(10), 1315– 1336. doi:10.1177/0170840607086552
Taskin, L., & Devos, V. (2005). Paradoxes from the individualization of human resource
management: The case of telework. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(1), 13 – 24.
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-8710-0
Taylor, B. C. (2005). Postmodern theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging
organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp.
113 – 140). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Thatcher, M. S. (2011). Negotiating the tension between the discourses of Christianity
and spiritual pluralism in alcoholics anonymous. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 39(4), 389 – 405. doi:10.1080/00909882.2011.608694
Thompson, M. (2008). Organising and disorganising. London, UK: Tiarchy.
Townley, B., Cooper, D. J., & Oakes, L. (2003). Performance measures and the ration-
alization of organizations. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1045–1071. doi:10.1177/
01708406030247003
Townsley, N. C., & Geist, P. (2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual har-
assment and academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication, 64(2),
190 – 217. doi:10.1080/10570310009374671
Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing
employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 32(2), 119 – 146. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210025
Trethewey, A. (2001). Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife
professional women’s experiences of aging. Management Communication
Quarterly, 15(2), 183 –226. doi:10.1177/0893318901152002
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 105
Trethewey, A., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2004). Special issue introduction. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 32(2), 81 – 88. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210007
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational
change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567 – 582. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
Tullar, W. L., & Kaiser, P. R. (2000). The effect of process training and outcomes in
virtual groups. Journal of Business Communication, 37(4), 408– 426. doi:10.
1177/002194360003700404
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note.
Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169 –188. doi:10.1002/smj.4250131013
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organ-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communi-
cation: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social pyschology of organizing (2nd ed.). Redding, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wendt, R. F. (1998). The sound of one hand clapping: Counterintuitive lessons
extracted from paradoxes and double binds in participative organizations.
Management Communication Quarterly, 11(3), 323– 371. doi:10.1177/
0893318998113001
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016