A different approach to managing conflicting demands is offered by paradox theory. Paradox denotes “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (Smith &
Lewis, 2011, p. 382). Such elements can take a wide variety of forms, such as motivations, perspectives, feelings, messages, demands, identities, interests, or practices. Instead of polarising phenomena with an “either/or” contingency approach, paradox involves a “both/and” approach that embeds contradiction and interdependence between contradictory elements (for reviews see Fairhurst et al., 2016; Putnam, Fairhurst & Banghart, 2016; Schad et al., 2016). Therefore, the core of a paradox lens is problem solving through co-existence, instead of fit (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014).
Paradoxes have three core characteristics. First, paradoxes present contradictory elements that are logical when viewed separately, but irrational and inconsistent with each other when viewed together. Second, paradoxes are interrelated as the contradictory elements are synergetic when viewed as part of a larger system. These contradictory elements represent different sides of the same entity. In paradoxical terms, the movement toward one element is a movement away from the other element, but it also emphasises the existence and the importance of the larger system with both elements. Third, paradoxes are persistent and individuals and organisations can only manage them over time, but cannot
resolve them with a single action (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011;
Lewis & Smith, 2014).
The literature suggests four types of paradoxes. First, paradoxes of organising embed tensions inherent in complex systems and organisations that create competing designs and processes, such as routine and change. Second, paradoxes of learning embed tensions inherent during change, renewal, and innovation that involve destroying old knowledge to create new knowledge. Third, paradoxes of belonging embed identity tensions inherent in being a part of a collective, yet seeking distinction. Finally, paradoxes of performing embed tensions arising from performing contradictory roles and activities to achieve contradictory goals.
These tensions can be particularly salient when the same action can achieve a positive outcome for one side of the paradox and a
negative outcome for the other side of the paradox (Smith and Lewis, 2011). Research suggests that macroparadoxes of organising arising from organisational change can inform mesoparadoxes of belonging and microparadoxes of learning and performing for individuals (Jarzabkowski, Lȇ & Van de Ven, 2013; Luscher & Lewis, 2008). As individuals experience tensions in relation to their roles and goals (i.e. paradox of performing) during organisational change, they engage in specific actions, such as developing separate product plans or employing integrated project dashboards. Such actions can be embedded in organisational procedures, thus generating
organisational-level responses to paradox (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013).
A paradox lens on contradictory elements encourages research on the responses actors enact (Lewis & Smith, 2014). Research suggests three general ways to respond to paradox. First, actors can accept the paradox (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989) and learn to live through it (Luscher & Lewis, 2008). Second, they can engage in differentiation (also labeled separation), which values both elements of the paradox and splits them. Differentiation can be spatial as contradictory elements are compartmentalised into different business
with each contradictory element at different points in time. For example, in the case of innovation ambidexterity, differentiation may involve allocating domain specific roles whereby different individuals focus only on radical or incremental innovation (Smith, 2014). Third, actors can engage in integration (also labeled synthesis) to address contradictory elements together by finding synergies between them (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith, 2014). For example, in the case of innovation ambidexterity, integration may involve allocating integrative roles whereby an individual focuses on both radical and incremental innovation (Smith, 2014). While paradoxes cannot be resolved with a single action, they can be managed through active engagement that embraces the tensions (Lewis, 2000; Smith &
Lewis, 2011; Lewis & Smith, 2014). Such active management of paradoxes involves both differentiation and integration general responses (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; 2010; Smith, 2014), yet the specific responses for individual actors may be different
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Gotsi et al., 2010).
A large body of research with a paradox lens examines mostly organisational-level responses to tensions from an organisation studies perspective. While paradoxes can exist at multiple levels of analysis (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010) and even be nested within different levels of analysis (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Luscher &
Lewis, 2008), most of the paradox research is focused at the organisational level of analysis (Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016). This stream of research examines how organisations deal with tensions embedded in innovation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;
2010; Smith, 2014), change (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Luscher &
Lewis, 2008), complexity and hybridity (Jay, 2013), or how middle managers (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Luscher & Lewis, 2008) or senior leaders (Smith, 2014) manage paradoxes informed by the organisation. Even when paradox studies investigate individual tensions, for example related to identity tensions of professionals in the creative industries, they investigate the managerial, social, and cultural approaches within organisations that can aid the
management of these individual tensions (Gotsi et al., 2010; Knight &
Harvey, 2015). Two exemptions in this paradox tradition apply the lens at the individual level of analysis. First, Miron-Spektor, Gino, and Argote (2011) demonstrate that priming individuals with a paradoxical approach stimulates conflict and integrative thinking, thus enhancing individual creativity. Second, Miller and Sardais (2015) apply the paradox lens to suggest that entrepreneurs can be both optimists and realists, can be both adaptable and persistent by using temporal separation and adopting these different attitudes (e.g. optimism vs realism) with different time frames.
A smaller stream of research in organisational behaviour, independent from the organisational studies, examines paradoxes at the individual level of analysis. This stream of research mostly
focuses on the different and competing roles leaders and managers enact (Denison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995; Hart & Quinn, 1993;
Hooijberg & Choi, 2000; Lawrence, Lenk & Quinn, 2009). Such competing roles include innovator vs. coordinator or mentor vs.
director (Denison et al., 1995). In contrast to organisational studies, this stream of research does not investigate how actors respond to paradoxical tensions. Instead, it mostly investigates competing roles independently (for an exemption see Zhang et al., 2015) and focuses on individual attributes that enable multiple roles. The first attribute is cognitive complexity, which is an individual’s ability to see more dimensions of an entity and commonalities between dimensions or entities, which includes integrative thinking. For example, cognitive complexity includes a leader’s ability to see his/her role as both a mentor and a director. The second attribute is behavioural
complexity, which is an individual’s ability to enact multiple and competing roles (Denison et al., 1995; Hart & Quinn, 1993; Wu, Steward & Hartley, 2010). For example, behavioural complexity includes a leader’s enactment of mentor and director roles.
While paradox theory suggests broad types of responses (i.e.
acceptance, differentiation, and integration), it is not clear what these broad responses mean for potentially conflicting motivations to seek feedback and to refrain from seeking feedback.