^ Academy of Management Review

2000. Vol. 25. No. 4. 760-776,

EXPLORING PARADOX: TOWARD A MORE

COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
MARIANNE W. LEWIS
University of Cincinnati

"Paradox" appears increasingly in organization studies, often to describe conflicting

demands, opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings. This article helps
researchers move beyond labeling—to explore paradoxes and contribute insights
more in tune with organizational complexity and ambiguity. I first develop a frame-
work that clarifies the nature of paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles, and their
management. Using this framework, I then review studies in which paradoxes spurred
by change and plurality are investigated. I conclude by outlining strategies for
identifying and representing paradox, addressing implications for research.

Paradoxes . . . seem to smile ironically at our
nicely constructed theories with their clear-cut
distinctions and point at an unthought-of possi-
bility, a blind spot in oppositional thinking
(Ybema, 1996: 40).
"Paradox" denotes contradictory yet inter-
related elements—elements that seem logical
in isolation but absurd and irrational when ap-
pearing simultaneously. Over a decade ago,
Cameron and Quinn (1988) claimed that by ex-
ploring paradox, researchers might move be-
yond oversimplified and polarized notions to
recognize the complexity, diversity, and ambi-
guity of organizational life. They praised para-
dox for offering a potentially powerful frame-
work for examining the impacts of plurality and
change, aiding understandings of divergent per-
spectives and disruptive experiences. Since
then, in a growing body of texts (e.g.. Handy,
1994; Kets de Vries, 1995; Koot, Sabelis, & Ybema,
1996) and studies (e.g.. Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993;
Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Vince & Broussine,
1996), researchers have examined paradox. Such
exemplars depict individuals, groups, and or-
ganizations as inherently paradoxical, em-
broiled in tensions and reinforcing cycles at
their very core. Abandoning the notion that
change is a smooth, linear, and planned jour-
ney, these researchers have examined how con-
tradictions both hamper and encourage organi-
zational development.
Many thanks to special issue editor Nilin Nohria, three
anonymous reviewers, and Kristen Taylor for their insightful
comments on earlier versions of this article.
760
Increasing technological change, global com-
petition, and workforce diversity reveal and in-
tensify paradox. Managers, for example, are
asked to increase efficiency and foster creativ-
ity, build individualistic teams, and think glo-
bally while acting locally. "It's a paradox," how-
ever, is rapidly becoming the management
cliche of our time—overused and underspeci-
fied (Handy, 1994). Reviewing studies from 1990
to 1997, Davis, Maranville, and Obloj (1997)
found the term used in over 300 major publica-
tions. Most often, researchers use paradox to
describe conflicting demands, opposing per-
spectives, or seemingly illogical findings. Yet,
labeling paradox does not necessarily foster un-
derstanding. Bouchikhi (1998) claims that while
organization researchers continue to unveil par-
adoxes, few explore them at greater depths.
Such exploration requires answering several
fundamental questions: What is paradox? How
might paradox serve as a framework, fostering
insights into contradictions and complex inter-
relationships? And how might researchers ac-
tively seek out paradox and build concepts and
theories that reflect the intricacies of organiza-
tional life?
In this article I address these questions to
help guide explorations of paradox. I begin by
building a framework that integrates extant un-
derstandings of paradox from philosophy, psy-
chology, and organization studies. The frame-
work clarifies the nature of underlying tensions,
reinforcing cycles, and their management. I then
review organization studies in which paradoxes
spurred by plurality and change are examined.
This review serves two purposes: (1) it illustrates
2000
the potential value of the framework for foster-
ing creative and complex insights, and (2) it
offers a key to exemplars, which may serve as
models for future inquiry. In conclusion, I glean
from reviewed studies strategies for identifying
and representing paradox and suggest implica-
tions ior research.
TENSIONS, REINFORCING CYCLES, AND
THEIR MANAGEMENT: A PARADOX
FRAMEWORK
Paradox: some 'thing' that is constructed by indi-
viduals when oppositiona! tendencies are
brought into recognizable proximity through re-
flection or interaction (Ford 8E Backoff, 1988: 89).
"Paradox" engenders numerous and varied
meanings. Philosophers from the ancient
Greeks to Existentialists have viewed human
existence as paradoxical—grounded in ten-
sions between life and death, good and evil, self
and other (see Hampden-Turner, 1981, and
Schneider, 1990). Similarly, psychologists have
long stressed the cognitive nature of paradox,
examining the impacts of tensions on creativity
and mental health (e.g., Bateson, 1972; Rothen-
berg, 1979) or using paradoxical therapy to help
actors face their inner conflicts (e.g., Harris, 1996;
Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). In or-
ganization studies some researchers define par-
adox as contradictions embedded within a
statement (e.g., Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), hu-
man emotions (e.g., Vince & Broussine, 1996), or
organizational practices (e.g., Eisenhardt &
Westcott, 1988). Others describe paradox as an
observation that counters common beliefs (e.g.,
Davis et al., 1997) or as an unintended conse-
quence (e.g., Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Koot et al. (1996)
use Wittgenstein's notion of paradox as some-
thing surprising, whereas other researchers
avoid explicit definition altogether (e.g., West-
enholz, 1993).
Ford and Backoff's (1988) definition, quoted at
the start of this section, offers a useful umbrella,
encompassing varied views and highlighting
three overarching characteristics of paradox.
First, as some 'thing,' a paradox may denote a
wide variety of contradictory yet interwoven
elements: perspectives, feelings, messages, de-
mands, identities, interests, or practices. Sec-
ond, paradoxes are constiucted. As actors at-
tempt to make sense of an increasingly intricate,
ambiguous, and ever-changing world, they fre-
Lewis 761
quently simplify reality into polarized either/or
distinctions that conceal complex interrelation-
ships. Third, paradoxes become apparent
through self- or social reflection or interaction
that reveals the seemingly absurd and irration-
al coexistence of opposites.
Some researchers, however, claim that com-
prehending paradox requires more than defin-
ing its characteristics; it requires a guiding
framework: a tool to help researchers explore
paradoxical tensions, reinforcing cycles, and
their management (e.g., Argyris, 1993; Cameron
& Quinn, 1988; Smith & Berg, 1987). In response, I
weave together insights from literature in psy-
chology, philosophy, and organization studies to
detail key elements of paradox. The resulting
framework clarifies (1) how paradoxical ten-
sions stem from polarized cognitive or social
constructions, (2) how actors' defensive reac-
tions might fuel reinforcing cycles, and (3) how
actors can avoid becoming stuck in these para-
lyzing and often vicious cycles via greater cog-
nitive and behavioral complexity.
Figure 1 illustrates these three components;
the arrows between components in the figure
denote the exploration process. By linking man-
agement back to tensions, the framework de-
picts exploration itself as paradoxical. Rather
than a linear progression marked by a distinct
endpoint or resolution, exploring paradox is an
ongoing and cyclical journey. As researchers
learn to comprehend paradox, they may dis-
cover other, potentially more intricate, contra-^
dictions. According to Rothenberg,
Sophistication in science and other fields allows
for greater and greater specification of meaning-
ful and appropriate opposites. As old opposites
are overthrown, new ones arise in a never ending
spiral of sell-generation paralleling the spiral of
increasing knowledge (1979: 244).
Tensions: The Underlying Sources of Paradox
Paradoxical tensions are perceptual—that is,
cognitively or socially constructed polarities
that mask the simultaneity of conflicting truths.
Unlike continua, dilemmas, or either/or choices,
paradoxical tensions signify two sides of the
same coin. Yet actors' perceptions often obscure
this relatedness. According to personal con-
struct theory (Kelly, 1955), most actors accentu-
ate contradictions by interpreting data (e.g.,
their own and others' feelings, organizational
 762 Academy of Management Review October

FIGURE 1
A Paradox Framework

Tensions Reiniorcing Management

cycles

Cognitively and/or Paialyzing defenses, Attempts to explore tensions

socially constructed which initially reduce
polaiities that obscure discomfort and anxiety,
(he interielatedness of yet eventually intensify
the contiadictions: tensions; for example:
for example:
- self-referential loops - splitting
- mixed messages - projection
- system contradictions - repression
- regression
- reaction formation
- ambivalence
and therehy tap the potential
energy, insights, and power
of paradox that enable
dramatic change; for example:
- acceptance
- conirontation
- transcendence

practices, environmental cues) through simple,
bipolar concepts, constructing logical, inter-
nally consistent sets of abstractions that sepa-
rate opposites. Such frames of references or
schemes enable actors to make sense of com-
plex realities, but they are biasing and, once
entrenched, become highly resistant to change
(Bartunek, 1988). Ford and Ford explain that dis-
tinctions "reside in the observer(s), not the ob-
served" {1994: 760). Actors distinguish a phenom-
enon by placing brackets or boundaries around
it, differentiating figure from ground to facilitate
their understanding. But such distinctions be-
come objectified over time, giving actors the im-
pression that their perceptions are distinct and
immutable entities.
Hampden-Turner (1981) reviewed varied ex-
planations of how actors make sense of para-
doxical tensions, such as autonomy/dependence
and reason/imagination, and claimed that for-
mal logic—the basis of traditional scientific in-
quiry— emphasizes polarization. Grounded in
the philosophies of Aristotle, Descartes, and
Newton, formal logic requires parsing phenom-
ena into ever smaller and more disparate
pieces. Yet, formal logic is based on either/or
thinking, incapable of comprehending the intri-
cacies of paradox (Ford & Ford, 1994).
Language feeds the tendency to polarize. Con-
ceptual boundaries help actors distinguish
what belongs and what does not, thereby giving
meaning to both sides of a polarity (Vince &
Broussine, 1996). Actors typically define phe-
nomena by explaining what it is not. For exam-
ple, by differentiating trust from mistrust or dis-
cord from harmony—sensations that often
coexist—paradoxical tensions "reveal the limi-
tations of conventional grammar based on con-
ventional logic" (Weick & Westley, 1996: 455-
456). In organization studies distinctions are
apparent in such polar constructs as quality/
cost, differentiation/integration, stability/
change, and cohesion/division. In contrast. East-
ern philosophies stress the need to avoid
simplistic distinctions. For instance, the T'ai-chi
T'u—the Taoist symbol of Yin and Yang (used to
illustrate tensions in Figure D^signifies a nat-
ural wholeness composed of contradictions.
2000 Lewis
When one force (e.g., Yin, femininity, intuition,
dark) escalates to its extreme state, it retains
elements of its opposition (e.g., Yang, masculin-
ity, rationality, light), eventually reversing the
trend (see Hampden-Turner, 1981: 20-21; Mor-
gan, 1997: 283-285; and Rothenberg, 1979: 140-
142, for discussions of this symbol).
Paradoxical tensions may appear in several
forms. Putnam (1986) summarizes three inter-
related types of tensions: self-referential loops,
mixed messages, and system contradictions.
Self-referential loops operate when contradic-
tions are embedded within a cohesive state-
ment, concept, or process. For instance, the
Liar's paradox—"I am lying"-—is a circular
statement. If I am lying, then this statement is
false, implying that I am telling the truth. Weick
(1979) describes cognition as an inherently self-
referential process: actors filter experiences
through their extant cognitive frames, choosing
explanations that confirm their existence. Mixed
messages denote inconsistencies between state-
ments or between verbal and nonverbal re-
sponses that appear during social interactions.
According to Argyris (1993), such tensions stem
from the construction of clearly ambiguous mes-
sages. For example, a supervisor calls for team-
work but closely monitors individual perfor-
mance. Over time, such tensions may become
objectified within system contradictions, en-
trenched "within the goals, reward systems, re-
source demands, and division of labour of an
organization" (Putnam, 1986: 161). For instance,
an organization composed of a network of flex-
ible, autonomous teams may use highly formal-
ized and centralized procedures for employee
control.
Reinforcing Cycles: The Negative Dynamics of
Paradox
The dynamics of paradox are often vicious. As
actors seek to resolve paradoxical tensions, they
may become trapped within reinforcing cycles
that perpetuate and exacerbate the tension, for
paradox is a double-edged sword. Tensions
might serve as "a trigger for change," spurring
actors to rethink existing polarities and recog-
nize more complicated interrelationships. Yet,
tensions simultaneously inhibit change. Actors'
more typical and often first reactions are defen-
sive, clinging to past understandings to avoid
763
recognizing their cognitive and social foibles
(Harris, 1996).
According to Freudian psychology, paradoxi-
cal tensions endanger the ego, producing anxi-
ety that naturally raises actors' defenses
(Schneider, 1990). Defenses denote "any policy or
action that prevents someone (or some system)
from experiencing embarrassment or threat, and
simultaneously prevents anyone from correcting
the causes of the embarrassment or threat"
(Argyris, 1993: 40). By suppressing the related-
ness of contradictions and maintaining the false
appearance of order, defenses may temporarily
reduce anxiety. But suppressing one side of a
polarity intensifies pressure from the other. The
result is a "strange loop" (Hofstadter, 1979). In
attempting to reduce the frustrations and dis-
comfort of tensions, actors' defensive behaviors
initially produce positive effects but eventually
foster opposite, unintended consequences that
intensify the underlying tension.
Researchers have detailed numerous de-
fenses operating at individual, group, and or-
ganizational levels (e.g., Argyris, 1993; Schnei-
der, 1990). In conjunction, Smith and Berg (1987)
and Vince and Broussine (1996) catalogued six
defensive reactions toward paradox. Splitting
entails further polarizing contradictions—for ex-
ample, by forming subgroups or artificial we/
they distinctions that mask similarities. Projec-
tion signifies the transfer of conflicting
attributes or feelings, often onto a scapegoat or
repository of bad feelings. Repression or denial
denotes the blocking of awareness of tenuous
experiences or memories, whereas regression
involves resorting to understandings or actions
that have provided security in the past. Reaction
formation entails excessively manifesting the
feeling or practice opposite to the threatening
one. In contrast, ambivaience signifies the com-
promise of conflicting emotions within "luke-
warm" reactions that lose the vitality of ex-
tremes.
Management: Tapping the Positive Potential of
Paradox
Managing paradox means capturing its en-
lightening potential. The goal is to journey be-
yond reinforcing cycles, dramatically rethinking
past perceptions and practices. According to
Farson, "Our natural inclination when con-
fronted with paradoxes is to attempt to resolve
 784 Academy of Management Review
them, to create the familiar out of the strange, to
rationalize them" (1996: 13). Yet, in today's com-
plex organizations, models based on linear and
rational problem solving do managers a tremen-
dous disservice. Managers need to recognize,
become comfortable with, and even profit from
tensions and the anxieties they provoke, for "the
contribution of paradox to management think-
ing is the recognition of its power to generate
creative insight and change" (Eisenhardt &
Westcott, 1988: 170).
Tapping the power of paradox is difficult,
however, because escaping reinforcing cycles
requires seemingly counterintuitive reactions
(Cameron & Quinn, 1988). Paradox management
entails exploring, rather than suppressing, ten-
sions. Smith and Berg (1987) explain that to es-
cape paralyzing cycles, actors must reclaim
emotions that have been polarized or projected
elsewhere and immerse themselves within the
tensions. According to Vince and Broussine,
"Staying with the paradox makes it possible to
discover a link between opposing forces and
opens up the framework that gives meaning to
the apparent contradictions" {1996: 4). Hence, a
paradox framework shifts the notion of "manag-
ing" from modern definitions based on planning
and control to coping—its original meaning
(Handy, 1994). Rather than management being
the sole responsibility of a few, managing par-
adox requires that local actors learn to cope
with their tensions. Openly and critically exam-
ining their polarized perceptions (e.g., of distinct
occupational groups, demands of customers ver-
sus employees) may enable more dramatic
changes in their understandings and behaviors.
Researchers suggest three, often interrelated
means of managing paradox: acceptance, con-
frontation, and transcendence, Schneider (1990)
proposes that acceptance—learning to live with
paradox—offers a sense of freedom. For exam-
ple, Murnighan and Conlon (1991) found that
members of successful string quartets are well
aware of their tensions (e.g., desires for personal
autonomy and strong group leadership). Accep-
tance helps members avoid debates, which
might open Pandora's box and spark vicious
cycles, and "play through" paradox by focusing
on their intense tasks.
Other researchers, however, call for actors to
confront paradox, discussing their tensions to
socially construct a more accommodating un-
derstanding or practice (e.g.. Smith & Berg, 1987;
October
Vince & Broussine, 1996). According to Ford and
Ford (1994), by identifying and discussing their
underlying logic, actors might subject their
ways of thinking to critique, thereby raising
their chances of escaping paralysis. Hatch and
Ehrlich describe humor as a low-risk means of
confrontation: "By reducing the social strain, hu-
mour may even permit some of these difficulties
to make their way into social awareness where
they could eventually become the subject of the
serious discourse of change efforts" (1993: 524).
For example, in joking about their concerns,
mid-level managers recognized that they both
monitor their employees and are heavily scruti-
nized by senior executives.
Lastly, transcendence implies the capacity to
think paradoxically. Watzlawick et al. (1974) ex-
plain that actors cannot break out of reinforcing
cycles by using first-order thinking—slight al-
terations to the logic and behaviors they have
used in the past—for first-order thinking pro-
duces a solution that is part of (and thereby
exacerbates) the problem. In contrast, second-
order thinking entails critically examining en-
trenched assumptions to construct a more ac-
commodating perception of opposites. Critical
self- and social reflection might help actors re-
frame their assumptions, learn from existing
tensions, and develop a more complicated rep-
ertoire of understandings and behaviors that
better reflects organizational intricacies (e.g.,
Denison, Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Quinn, Kahn,
& Mandl, 1994). Such reframing marks a dra-
matic change in the meaning attributed to a
situation as paradoxical tensions become
viewed as complementary and interwoven.
Rothenberg (1979), in examining the creative
process of scientific and artistic geniuses, de-
scribes this as the capacity for lanusian think-
ing: "In an apparent defiance of logic or of phys-
ical possibility, the creative person consciously
formulates the simultaneous operation of anti-
thetical elements and develops those into inte-
grated entities and creations. It is a leap that
transcends ordinary logic" (1979: 55). For exam-
ple, Mozart and Beethoven linked harmony and
discord to fuel their musical inspiration. Artists
such as Picasso and van Gogh used jarring jux-
tapositions to portray the ambiguity, diversity,
and complexity of perceptions. And Einstein en-
visioned a man falling off a building at rest
relative to things falling beside him and moving
2000 Lewis 765

relative to sights he passed on the way down,
forever altering understandings of physics.
PARADOXES, CHANGE, AND PLURALITY:
A REVIEW OF EXEMPLARS
In this section I illustrate the framework-
in-use and provide a guide to exemplars. In-
cluded works represent an extensive review of
organization studies in which researchers use
paradox as more than a label. Paradox is both
the guiding framework and the subject of in-
quiry. Although in some works scholars exam-
ine all three components of paradox (e.g., Leo-
nard-Barton, 1992; Westenholz, 1993), in others
they focus primarily on tensions (e.g., Ybema,
1996), reinforcing cycles (e.g., Ropo & Hunt, 1995),
or their management (e.g., Denison et al., 1995).
The exemplars also vary considerably in level of
analysis, focal topics, and empirical approach-
es—for example, some are literature reviews of
organization theory (e.g.. Miller, 1993) and others
are interpretive analyses of a specific organiza-
tion (e.g.. Hatch, 1997). Yet they share themes of
change and plurality. In these studies research-
ers explore how disruptions expose tensions
within organizations and how ambiguity fosters
multiple, often conflicting interpretations of
phenomena.
To summarize such varied exemplars, I cate-
gorize works within three, frequently inter-
related paradoxes—learning, organizing, and
belonging—that appear repeatedly across stud-
ies (see Table 1). Learning paradoxes revolve
around processes of sensemaking, innovation,
and transformation that reveal interwoven ten-
sions between old and new. Paradoxes of or-
ganizing stress conflicting yet simultaneous de-

TABLE 1
Exemplary Organization Studies of Paradox

Tensions Reinforcing Cycles Management

Paradoxes of Learning
Learning requires using, critiquing, and often destroying past understandings and practices to construct new and more
complicated fiames of reference.
Old/new Defenses ol repression, projection, Social retraming
• Sensemaking (Argyris, 1993; Bartunek, 1988; and regression • Shocking crises and
Davis, Maranville, & Obloj, 1997; Westenholz, • Cognitive sell-reference discrepancies
1993) Inertial actions and • Open communications and
Innovation (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Ropo & competencies experimentation
Hunt, 1995) Simpliiication of systems, values, • Paradoxical leadership
Transformation (Davis, Maianville, 8f Obloj, and structures
1997; Hatch, 1997; Miller, 1993; Vmce &
Broussine, 1996)
Paradoxes of Organizing
Organizing denotes an ongoing process of equiJibrating opposing forces that encourage commitment, trust, and creativity
while maintaining efficiency, discipline, and order.
Control/flexibility Defenses of repression and reaction Dynamic equilibration
• Performance (Bouchikhi, 1998; Denison, formation • Superordinate goals
Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995; Murnighan & • Intense mistrust • Humor
Conlon. 1991; Quinn, 1988) • Escalating resistance and • Behavioral complexity
• Empowerment (Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988; alienation
Klein, 1994; O'Connor, 1995; Sabelis, 1998) • Extreme chaos or rigidity
• Formalization (Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993; Sitkin &
Bies, 1993)
Paradoxes of Belonging
Groups become cohesive, influential, and distinctive by valuing the diversity of their members and their inferconnecdons
with other groups.
Self/other Defenses of ambivalence, projection, Social acceptance
• Individuality {Amason, 1996; Murnighan & and splitting • Task focus
Conlon, 1991: Smith & Berg, 1987) • Destructive conflict • Valuing difference
• Group boundaries (Leonard-Barton, 1992; • Group polarization • Reduced power
Martin, 1992; O'Connor, 1995; Ybema, 1996) • Tribalism discrepancies
• Globalization (Koot, 1996; Naisbitt, 1994)
 766 Academy of Management Review
mands for control and flexibility examined in
studies of organizational performance, empow-
erment, and formalization. In turn, paradoxes of
belonging signify complex relationships be-
tween self and other, highlighting the problem-
atic nature of individuality, group boundaries,
and globalization. Discussion of each paradox
demonstrates uses of the paradox framework
and the resulting insights into organizational
change and plurality.
Paradoxes oi Learning
Many paradoxes are caused by the hangover of
one set of assumptions or beliefs into a new age
or environment and proliferate when change is
dramatic or rapid. Paradoxes emerge when be-
liefs or assumptions fail to keep up with external
changes (Cannon, 1996: 110).
Why do actors seem to ignore dramatic
changes in their environment? Why do they fail
to take action when they do perceive inconsis-
tencies between their understandings and the
world around them, or take action that produces
results contrary to those intended? A common
factor in these questions is learning: the ability
to frame new knowledge within understandings,
routines, and structures that enable actors to
comprehend and adjust to variations. Hofstadter
(1979) explains the learning paradox as follows:
perceptions and actions are self-referential, re-
lying and building upon themselves as actors
attempt to change. Paradoxical tensions may
reveal the need for learning, yet actors often use
their extant cognitive and behavioral frames to
construct new frames, trapping them within a
double-blind (Bateson, 1972). In the reviewed ex-
emplars researchers explore these puzzles,
striving to develop theories of sensemaking, in-
novation, and organizational transformation
that emphasize, rather than downplay, the intri-
cacies of learning (e.g., Argyris, 1993; Bartunek,
1988; Westenholz, 1993). According to Davis et
al., in such studies scholars seek a deeper un-
derstanding of the penultimate paradox: "The
more things change, the more they remain the
same" (1997: 276).
A key source of learning paradoxes is tension
between old and new—a struggle between the
comfort of the past and the uncertainty of the
future. In exemplars researchers depict this ten-
sion operating at differing levels of analysis.
Westenholz (1993) began exploring paradox at a
October
cognitive level when she recognized that, year
after year, an organization she was studying
kept grappling with the same problematic wage
issue with no progress. Employing paradox as a
framework, she became acutely aware of how
actors were making sense of their experiences
through their existing frames of reference. Ac-
tors chose interpretations that supported, rather
than challenged, their frames, inhibiting critical
self- and social reflection and reframing.
In other exemplars researchers portray ac-
tions, routines, and skills following similar pat-
terns yet based more on inertia than cognition
(e.g., Davis et al., 1997; Ropo & Hunt, 1995). For
instance, Leonard-Barton (1992) found that or-
ganizations' core capabilities (e.g., ingrained
human skills and managerial systems) foster
and frustrate innovation. The more actors stress
their core capabilities, the more they invoke
their flip side: core rigidities. Extant strengths
offer routines that may guide innovative efforts.
Yet, clinging to core competencies might inhibit
actors from considering more drastic changes.
Applying a higher level of analysis. Miller
(1993) uses paradox to extend theories of organ-
izational transformation. He explains how the
focus that enables an organization to prosper
initially might lead to its eventual demise. As
organizations and their environments become
more complicated and diverse, rather than ad-
here to the theory of requisite variety, actors'
cumulative learning during times of prosperity
may simplify and narrow organizational compe-
tencies, strategies, and cultural values.
By delving into paradoxical dynamics, re-
searchers reveal how actors' defenses fuel self-
referential cycles, fostering incremental learn-
ing at best and organizational paralysis or
decline at worst. In particular, repression, pro-
jection, and regression serve to protect actors
temporarily from recognizing that extant skills,
routines, and understandings may be obsolete.
Vince and Broussine (1996) note how actors focus
on the positive aspects of change to avoid dis-
cussing their fears and frustrations. To bolster
their confidence, actors might also attribute suc-
cesses to existing skills and practices and prob-
lems to elements beyond their control (Argyris,
1993; Miller, 1993). Projecting blame, often across
organizational levels or groups (e.g., workers
blaming management and vice versa), limits
discussion of disparate understandings and so-
cial reframing (Westenholz, 1993). Yet, possibly
2000
the most documented learning defense is
regression to the comfort of past practices
(e.g., Argyris, 1993; Ropo & Hunt, 1995). In her
cases Leonard-Barton (1992) found that inconsis-
tencies between core capabilities and innova-
tion demands frequently led to more intense use
of extant strengths, resulting in teams repeat-
edly missing opportunities for creative break-
throughs. Similarly, Miller (1993) claimed that
rising simplicity, in the face of growing environ-
mental complexity, defends organizations
against recognizing the need for potentially dis-
ruptive and painful change.
Exemplars indicate that managing learning
paradoxes requires one, or more likely a combi-
nation, of three elements that aid social refram-
ing: shock, open communication and experimen-
tation, and paradoxical leadership. Shock—an
experience that clearly violates a frame of ref-
erence—^may force actors to admit the limits of
extant understandings and practices (Bartunek,
1988: Leonard-Barton, 1992; Miller, 1993; Ropo &
Hunt, 1995; Westenholz, 1993). But shocking situ-
ations might be insufficient to provoke refram-
ing. Subtle means of confrontation might help
open communications, fostering discussion
among actors with varied frames of reference to
surface their divergent insights. Vince and
Broussine (1996) used drawings as a means for
actors across levels to recognize and discuss
their anxieties, whereas Leonard-Barton (1992)
found that experimentation reduced the risk of
testing new frames and practices. Westenholz
(1993) proposed that a forum conducive to open
discussion and experimentation might aid so-
cial reflection. In support, other exemplars illus-
trate how isolating a diverse group enabled
their developing a new identity as "resistors,"
liberating them to battle organizational rigidi-
ties (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Ropo & Hunt, 1995).
Finally, paradoxical leadership may be vital to
managing learning paradoxes. A paradoxical
leader is an influential actor capable of thinking
paradoxically and guiding social reflection,
helping others examine, rather than suppress,
their tensions (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Westen-
holz, 1993).
In sum, the reviewed exemplars depict the
need for researchers to explore paradoxical ten-
sions that inhibit and foster learning. In future
studies scholars can extend these works by ex-
amining the simultaneity of construction and
destruction, ior learning requires using, critiqu-
Lewis 767
ing, and often tearing down the old to build the
new. The paradox framework might guide such
studies, helping researchers depict learning as
a self-referential cycle, and encourage actors to
socially reflect upon conflicting feelings, exist-
ing and comfortable routines, and the defenses
they provoke.
Paradoxes of Organizing
Any action, any act of cognition, definition, or
concept is based on and establishes distinctions.
Thus, the very actions of organizing involve the
drawing of distinctions; organization itself is a
source of tension (Ford & Backoff, 1988: 86-87).
How can organizations operate efficiently and
adapt continuously? Why do some attempts to
increase employee involvement and commit-
ment intensify resistance and mistrust? Why do
formal procedures aimed at assuring fair treat-
ment of employees often trigger claims of injus-
tice? Such questions, addressing the conflicting
aspects of organizational design, are becoming
a hallmark of organization studies. Yet Bouch-
ikhi (1998) notes that theories often downplay
this complexity in favor of either/or frameworks,
such as contingency theories in which the im-
pacts of organic versus mechanistic structures
are distinguished or in which organizations are
categorized as stable oi in flux. In contrast, I
now review studies in which dynamic and op-
posing forces coexisting within organizations
are accented. If we use a paradox framework,
organizing appears to inherently juxtapose con-
tradictions. Exemplars depict the intricate na-
ture of performance, empowerment, and formal-
ization as managers seek to encourage
commitment, participation, and trust and in-
crease efficiency, coordination, and security.
Tensions between control and flexihility un-
derlie paradoxes of organizing, typically mani-
fested as mixed messages and system contra-
dictions. Quinn (1988; see also Denison et al.,
1995), for instance, uses a paradox framework to
explore conflicting performance demands, such
as concerns for morale, profitability, innovation,
and stability. Similarly, Bouchikhi defines or-
ganizations as "social spaces continuously torn
by members in multiple and contradictory direc-
tions" (1998: 224).
Others note the rise of such tensions during
attempts to foster empowerment or to increase
formalization. Sabelis (1996) turned to paradox
 768 Academy of Management Review
when she became puzzled by system contradic-
tions during a case study. While implementing
teams to foster employee autonomy, manage-
ment also introduced an automatic time regis-
tration system to track employees' comings and
goings. Such contradictions are often inherent in
empowerment practices. For example, just-in-
time (JIT; e.g., Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988) and
total quality management (TQM; e.g., Klein,
1994) practices require employee discretion and
problem solving as well as formal statistical
and monitoring controls.
Sitkin and Bies (1993) used paradox to examine
legalization: formalization that mirrors legalistic
procedures. They sought to explain why legaliza-
tion helps ensure fair treatment of employees and
offers those in power means of legitimating poten-
tially unfair decisions. Hatch and Ehrlich (1993)
detailed similar struggles with formalization. To
fulfill increasing demands for profit, managers
sought to bolster the commitment of subordinates
and protect corporate assets from pilfering. Yet,
implementing security mechanisms (symbols of
suspicion) contradicted their messages of trust
and cooperation.
In several exemplars researchers examine de-
fenses, such as repression and reaction forma-
tion, to help comprehend the negative dynamics
of organizing paradoxes. Romanticizing empow-
erment practices is a typical form of repression.
For instance, Klein (1994) examined the problem-
atic nature of TQM, a practice inspired by Jap-
anese philosophies of discipline through em-
powerment. Klein claims that managers often
downplay the tensions of TQM to revel in its
controls, the feature most fitting Western organ-
izational cultures, and neglect the need for high
employee commitment and autonomy. O'Connor
(1995) describes similar behaviors during the im-
plementation of a participation program. Top
management called for mid-level managers' in-
volvement while setting binding limits on their
discretion. Such mixed messages increased the
resistance and alienation of the mid-level man-
agers as they increasingly questioned their
roles in such practices.
Other exemplars depict reaction formation:
actors overreact to tensions of flexibility and
control by focusing on one pole, thereby spark-
ing a stronger pull from its opposite (e.g., Bouch-
ikhi, 1998). Murnighan and Conlon (1991) found
that string quartets require an authoritarian
leader (first violinist) and democratic participa-
October
tion to achieve high performance. In the least
successful quartet examined, they found that as
rehearsals became chaotic and calls for leader-
ship intensified, the first violinist sought greater
participation, feeding frustrations and impeding
performance. Similarly, Sitkin and Bies (1993)
claim that legalization improves procedural jus-
tice for highly subjective practices (e.g., hiring
and grievance-handling practices). Yet, legalis-
tic procedures might protect the powerful, limit
human discretion, and create an adversarial cli-
mate in organizations. As problems arise, man-
agers often become increasingly reliant on for-
mal methods, fueling further rationalization that
ignores wider social implications and, in turn,
reduces trust and productivity in a vicious
spiral.
Across reviewed works, use of superordinate
goals, humor, and behavioral complexity ap-
peared to help actors manage organizing para-
doxes. Several exemplars show how common
and expansive goals, which place contradic-
tions within a wider context, help actors accept
paradox. For instance, Murnighan and Conlon
(1991) note that quartets sharing a true love for,
or even obsession with, their music were more
likely to embrace conflicting needs for authority
and democracy and to thrive. Other researchers
claim that successfully implementing empower-
ment practices such as TQM (Klein, 1994) and JIT
(Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988) requires a focus
upon ultimate goals—for example, continuous
improvement. Actors then might recognize au-
tonomy as vital for fostering creativity and inno-
vation and control as key to tightening effi-
ciency standards.
Hatch found that humor offered actors a
means of neutralizing their "emotional denial so
that contradictory understandings could be con-
fronted in a less-threatening, more-playful fash-
ion" (1997: 287). Hatch and Ehrlich (1993) found
that humor conveys powerful messages, helping
actors express their frustrations with formaliza-
tion. As humorous remarks swirled around an
image of a prison—for example, gun turrets and
search-and-seizure jokes—managers shared
their feelings of being guards relative to their
subordinates, yet prisoners relative to their su-
periors, who forced the responsibility of security
upon them.
Quinn (1988), in contrast, claimed that truly
transcending and prospering from organizing
paradoxes requires behavioral complexity: hav-
2000
ing an expansive repertoire of actions to draw
upon when responding to conflicting and fluctu-
ating demands. Denison et al. (1995) tested this
premise. They discovered that highly effective
leaders display intricate and paradoxical be-
havioral repertoires that mirror tenuous condi-
tions in the environment. Such leaders are
capable of fostering consistency, stability,
and control, as well as passion, courage, and
wonder.
In sum, the more complex, diverse, and dy-
namic organizations become, the more tradi-
tional either/or thinking oversimplifies manage-
ment practices and demands. At the extremes,
organizational life appears chaotic or alienat-
ing. Yet, managing paradoxical tensions de-
notes not compromise between flexibility and
control but awareness of their simultaneity.
Exemplars offer both/and insights into organi-
zational characteristics and performance, em-
phasizing the coexistence of authority and de-
mocracy, discipline and empowerment, and
formalization and discretion. Using the paradox
framework, in future studies researchers can ex-
plore organizing as an ongoing process of equil-
ibrating opposing forces and detail its tensions,
cyclical dynamics, and management.
Paradoxes of Belonging
Because of the connection ... between the iden-
tity of "seli" and the identity oi "other," and
among the multiple frames that can be and are
applied to any social event, our experience of
contradiction is often an experience of paradox
(Smith & Berg, 1987: 61).
How do actors become integral members of a
group and retain their individuality? Why do
consensus and cohesion appear to coexist with
conflict and division in organizational life? As
organizations become more global and intercon-
nected, why are battles to retain local traditions
escalating? In contemporary organizations blur-
ring hierarchical, occupational, and national
distinctions intensify the paradoxical nature of
social relationships. The following reviewed
works contribute fascinating insights into is-
sues of individuality (e.g., Amason, 1996; Mur-
nighan & Conlon, 1991), group boundaries (e.g.,
Leonard-Barton, 1992; Ybema, 1996), and global-
ization (e.g., Koot, 1996; Naisbitt, 1994). According
to Smith and Berg (1987), these issues revolve
around paradoxes of belonging: the tenuous and
Lewis 769
often seemingly absurd nature of membership.
Paradoxical tensions arise because actors strive
for both self-expression and collective affilia-
tion. Seeking to comprehend their roles in a
group, organization, and/or community, mem-
bers attempt to artificially distinguish them-
selves (e.g., differentiating personal competen-
cies, occupational practices, or ethnic values).
In the exemplars tensions between self and
other are the crux of belonging paradoxes. Ac-
cording to Smith and Berg, the paradox of indi-
viduality is a self-referential cycle: groups be-
come strong and resourceful only if the
individuality of their members is expressed
(1987: 102). Individual expression, however, en-
genders group conflict—that is, conflict capable
of fostering more accommodating and novel un-
derstandings and disrupting group decision
making and performance (Amason, 1996). Mur-
nighan and Conlon (1991) used paradox as a
framework for analyzing such tensions in string
quartets. Actors joined quartets, rather than
symphonies, to have a greater impact on the
music. Quartets, however, achieved acclaim by
integrating the talents of their players.
Within large organizations a related paradox
appears in the construction of group boundaries,
which define membership by differentiating one
collective from another. Yet, we/they distinc-
tions are plentiful and ambiguous. Actors are
members of the organization and of varied oc-
cupations and subcultures within and outside
the organization, provoking feelings of inclusion
and exclusion simultaneously (Martin, 1992).
Ybema (1996) documented such tensions occur-
ring in a Dutch amusement park. Actors shared
a pride in the organization's success but empha-
sized social distinctions between new profes-
sionals and established craftsmen.
In multinational organizations globalization
appears to provoke similar tensions. Naisbitt
(1994) used paradox to examine the rise of "uni-
versalism," as multinationals connect distant lo-
cales through central goals and advanced tele-
communications, and the rise of "tribalism," as
local groups seek to retain their ethnic and lin-
guistic distinctions.
Paradoxes of belonging often raise actors' de-
fenses, intensifying conflict, polarization, and
tribalism. According to Smith and Berg (1987),
defenses of ambivalence and projection might
fuel destructive conflict as actors seek to ex-
press their differences yet remain valued mem-
 770 Academy of Management fleview
bers of a group. Murnighan and Conlon (1991),
for example, found that when debates erupted
during musical rehearsals, less successful quar-
tets often quickly agreed to bland compromises.
Such ambivalence helped mute opposing per-
spectives but allowed strong feelings to fester
and resurface in later rehearsals or, worse, in
concert. At other times, members would project
their frustrations by blaming other members for
poor performance, launching personal attacks
that paralyzed the group.
Other exemplars illustrate the dysfunctional
impacts of splitting. By exaggerating cultural
and occupational uniqueness, actors tempo-
rarily secure their identity but at the expense of
greater mutual understanding (Martin, 1992).
O'Connor (1995) documented a growing polar-
ization between managers deemed "in" and
"out" of a new participation program. To bolster
their egos, the team implementing the program
described those opposed to the change as igno-
rant of its value. Rather than hear their concerns
and recognize potential flaws in the program,
the team sent opposing managers away for
training, intensifying the managers' resistance
and exclusion.
Leonard-Barton (1992) found that splitting
also might reduce the performance of less
powerful groups. In the product development
projects she studied, interdisciplinary cooper-
ation was vital. Yet, as members of the domi-
nant discipline (design engineering) sought
and received increasing praise for their skills,
the status and expectations of those in other
disciplines (manufacturing and marketing) de-
clined. She described the vicious cycle as fol-
lows: the lower the expectations of lower-
status disciplines, the lower their confidence
and subsequent contributions to the project,
reinforcing and further lowering expectations.
Other researchers note that in multinational
firms, attempts to manage diversity, and
thereby to increase organizational cohesive-
ness, often spark tribalism or splitting by minor-
ity groups (e.g., Naisbitt, 1994). Koot discovered
that "creating distance and accenting one's eth-
nic origin tend to be weapons—very strong
ones—in the struggle against the dominant
party" (1996: 80). By stressing their distinctions,
less powerful and marginalized ethnic groups
seek to retain a sense of local identity, often
subverting organizational performance in the
process.
October
Three methods appear to help actors manage
paradoxes of belonging: maintaining a task fo-
cus, valuing difference, and reducing power dis-
crepancies. Amason (1996) explains that a task
focus might tap the functional side of conflict—
cognitive conflict based on individuals' judg-
ments regarding how to achieve a common
goal—and avoid the dysfunctional flip side—
affective conflict based on emotional and per-
sonal disputes. Likewise, Murnighan and Con-
lon (1991) found that successful string quartets
played through their conflicts, using their in-
tense task to foster individual and group impro-
visation.
Exemplars also depict the need to value dif-
ference (e.g., Leonard-Barton, 1992; Murnighan &
Conlon, 1991). From a paradoxical perspective,
valuing difference means appreciating varied
perspectives and capabilities, rather than ac-
centuating personal or ethnic distinctions.
Valuing difference also might help actors
lessen power discrepancies, which often fuel po-
larization and tribalism (Naisbitt, 1994). Koot dis-
covered that "if one wants to reduce cultural
distance—paradoxically—one should not
mainly focus on the differences in culture, but
concentrate on the differences in power and con-
flicting interests" (1996; 81). Similarly, Leonard-
Barton (1992) found that when crises (e.g., miss-
ing deadlines) occurred during product
development projects, members of the dominant
discipline often began listening and giving cre-
dence to views of the less dominant. In some
companies this led to a rise in the status of
nondominant groups, reversing the negative re-
inforcing cycle by raising the expectations and
power of these groups.
In sum, as change pressures and growing
workforce diversity complicate the social milieu,
the ability to comprehend belonging paradoxes
becomes increasingly vital. Exemplars demon-
strate that the stronger the push toward cohe-
sion and consensus, the stronger the pull toward
individuality and fragmentation. By applying
the paradox framework, in future studies re-
searchers can extend understandings of how
groups become cohesive, influential, and dis-
tinctive by valuing the diversity of their mem-
bers and their links with other groups. A health-
ier sense of belonging in contemporary
organizations requires a deep, social accep-
tance of differences, aided by critical examina-
tion of artificial distinctions.
2000 Lewis
IDENTIFYING AND REPRESENTING PARADOX:
EXPLORATION STRATEGIES
Cameron and Quinn note that "Paradoxes are
paiadoxical"—common and surprising, confus-
ing and understandable (1998: 13). In the works
reviewed, scholars contribute valuable insights
into organizational paradoxes, offering founda-
tions and exemplars for future inquiry. However,
studies explicitly focused on paradox remain
sparse, despite the increasing appearance of
the paradox label in organization studies
(Bouchikhi, 1998; Davis et al., 1997). One expla-
nation for this scarcity is the inadequacy of tra-
ditional approaches for examining tensions. As
Teunissen notes, how can researchers "investi-
gate an intangible phenomenon, like para-
doxes, with sophisticated research methods
which are based on logic, rationality, and con-
sistency?" (1996: 18). Exploring paradox requires
remaining acutely aware of contradictions and
anomalies and expanding our strategies ac-
cordingly. In this light, paradoxes may offer
challenging, even frame-breaking experiences,
pushing researchers to question approaches
that oversimplify and overrationalize complex
phenomena.
In this final section I extract from reviewed
exemplars potentially powerful strategies for
identifying and representing paradox. Identi-
fying paradox means recognizing and inter-
preting tensions, and representation signifies
methods of conceptualizing, mapping, and
theorizing paradox. Regardless of whether re-
searchers approach paradoxes accidentally,
seeking to comprehend surprising findings in
their studies (e.g., O'Connor, 1995; Sitkin &
Bies, 1993), or purposefully, making paradox
the subject of their inquiry (e.g., Davis et al.,
1997; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), these strate-
gies might aid exploration. Since detailing
these strategies would require a separate ar-
ticle, I contain the following discussion to out-
lining the premises of each strategy, noting
specific techniques used in the reviewed ex-
emplars, and recommending sources for more
elaborate descriptions.
Identification: Narrative, Psychodynamic, and
Multiparadigm Approaches
A key challenge when exploring paradox is
locating and bracketing the phenomena
771
(Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993). Exemplars depict three
potentially valuable approaches for iden-
tifying paradox: narrative, psychodynamic,
and multiparadigm. These approaches share
two characteristics. First, they help research-
ers focus on everyday organizational life and
a search for taken-for-granted contradictions.
Farson (1996) compares this focus to the The-
atre for the Absurd: a strategy, in direct con-
trast to artistic renditions that romanticize life,
which paradoxically serves the dignity of hu-
man beings by revealing confusion and odd-
ity. As Hatch and Ehrlich explain, "The under-
noticed aspects of daily life are rich with clues
to cultural meaning and processes of sustain-
ing social construction" (1993: 521). Second,
these approaches help researchers "read"
complexity (Morgan, 1997), offering techniques
for exposing conflicting messages, feelings,
and perspectives.
In some exemplars researchers apply a narra-
tive approach, analyzing discourse to identify
paradox. Those using this strategy rely on the
premise that paradoxes are both recognizable
and socially constructed through actors' rhetoric
and conversations. Hatch and Ehrlich (1993), for
instance, examined actors' use of humor. To
grasp the intangible nature of paradox, they
searched for the most immediately recognizable
manifestation, coding laughter as a sign of hu-
mor a sign of paradox. Humor helped expose
conflicting emotions, from playfulness to anxi-
ety, and the "duplicity of meaning" from which
paradoxes arise. For example, in analyzing nu-
merous remarks in which firm security was com-
pared to a prison, these researchers recognized
actors' awareness that "accepting a position as
a guard makes one a prisoner" of a larger sys-
tem of control, guarded by the executives of the
firm (1993: 517).
Similarly, Hatch (1997) used irony as a clue to
paradoxical tensions operating in actors' cogni-
tive and emotional domains, defining irony as a
form of humor based on contradiction. For exam-
ple, in a meeting with mid-level managers, a
general manager described firm executives' ex-
pectations for a new inventory reduction pro-
gram. He reported the extreme changes de-
manded by the executives (e.g., a $32 million
dollar drop in inventory in 60 days and the re-
scheduling of 12 million parts) and then said,
"Other than that, everything went great! [laugh-
ter]" (1997: 280). This statement revealed con-
111 Academy of Management Review
flicts between negative and positive emotions.
"Great" was both used and understood as ironic.
It represented the organization's emphasis on
positive thinking and the value of change while
stressing the painful implications oi the new
program. Irony served a reflexive purpose: it
enabled the managers to express and manage
their own thoughts and emotions. Laughter
helped neutralize the potential for emotion-
based denial of contradictory feelings {despair/
opportunity).
O'Connor (1995) applied a third narrative
technique. She used textual analysis to iden-
tify paradoxical tensions during the introduc-
tion of a participation program. Employing
text—case studies written by the implementa-
tion teams—as data, O'Connor searched for
mixed messages. Such messages often be-
came apparent by the lack of attention given
to them, highlighting the typical undiscuss-
able nature of paradox. For instance, she ex-
amined how "inclusion" meant "exclusion,"
because labeling those included in the pro-
gram necessarily defined those excluded. As
resistance rose among those excluded from
the change process, the text increasingly jux-
taposed "resistance" with language denoting
ignorance. Teams appeared to rationalize dis-
agreement as a need for education. This form
of denial, in addition to the splitting of actors
into "in" and "out" groups, intensified the
teams' tensions between encouraging cooper-
ation and applying coercion.
A psychodynamic approach offers additional
techniques for identifying paradox. Researchers
conduct research with, not on, actors to help
both the researchers and organizational actors
recognize inner conflicts. Argyris (1993; Argyris
& Schon, 1996) detailed several psychodynamic
techniques. For instance, one method requires
actors to track their conversations—writing
what they say in the right column and what they
think in the left. At the end of the conversation,
the researchers and actors compare the actors'
right and left columns for mixed messages and
signs of defensiveness.
In a seminar, for example, two actors debated
the value of different strategic actions. Analyz-
ing the actors' right and left columns, they real-
ized how each actor sought to avoid conflict by
not expressing more bluntly why they felt the
other's plan would not work. Over time, the ac-
tors' left-hand columns indicated rising frustra-
October
tions, such as "Why doesn't he understand; it's
so obvious?" and "He thinks I'm full of s and
is telling me what I want to hear." As the actors
repeatedly stressed their main points, without
discussing their varied underlying perceptions,
they became increasingly wedded to their own
views. Paradoxically, the more cordial the dis-
cussion became, the more disagreements inten-
sified. By feeding information back to the actors,
the researcher sought to help them reflect on
their tensions and escape vicious cycles via
more open communication.
Imagery offers another psychodynamic tech-
nique used in some exemplars {e.g., Ybema,
1996). Vince and Broussine (1996) employed
drawings to prompt actors to "say the unsaid"
during a disruptive organizational change. The
majority of participants drew pictures that jux-
taposed images of dread (e.g., a person pushing
a boulder up a steep hill, a fortress under siege)
and hope {e.g., a "First Prize" gold cup, a dinghy
sailing toward a sunset). "The wide spectrum of
feelings about oneself related to the change was
illustrated, literally" (1996: 16-17). Discussing
the drawings helped the actors distance them-
selves from the anxieties of work and to legiti-
mate and share their feelings. Actors were able
to stay with the uncertainty long enough to work
through their tensions by connecting surface
{actual work issues) and more latent {emotions
and assumptions) concerns.
A multiparadigm approach entails using op-
posing theoretical perspectives as sensitizing
devices {see Lewis & Grimes, 1999, and Poole &
Van de Ven, 1989, for more extensive discus-
sions). According to Teunissen, locating para-
dox requires taking into consideration the diver-
sity of interpretations possible in order to detail
contradictions "in absurdity and weirdness or in
brightness and curiosity" (1996: 29). A paradigm
denotes a way of thinking about phenomena
based on distinct epistemological and method-
ological assumptions. Exemplars depict alterna-
tive paradigms as offering divergent yet com-
plementary lenses (e.g., radical/functionalist,
subjectivist/objectivist), which may identify mul-
tiple perceptions of a situation. Martin (1992), for
example, used three perspectives to analyze an
organizational culture. An integrative lens
helped expose perceptions of a cohesive culture,
a differentiation lens highlighted conflict and
division, and a fragmentation lens revealed am-
2000
biguity. By applying three lenses, she became
acutely aware of how
some things will be consistent, clear, and gener-
ate organization-wide consensus. Simulta-
neously, other aspects of the culture will coalesce
within subcultural boundaries and still other el-
ements of culture will be fragmented, in a state of
constant flux, and infused with confusion, doubt,
and paradox (1992: 5).
Similarly, Ybema (1996) collected thick anthro-
pological data that enabled analysis from dis-
parate perspectives. By helping him examine
language used in private conversations, an in-
terpretivist lens exposed contrasting values
held by new professionals and established
craftsmen. Each subculture stressed its unique
skills (e.g., technical know-how versus experi-
ence) and berated the other's. In contrast, a pos-
itivist lens unveiled their shared pride in the
organization and concern for its success by fo-
cusing on formal mission statements and dis-
cussions in large meetings. By using multiple
paradigms, Ybema recognized that "the com-
plexity of group membership, the ambiguity of
rules and rituals, and the coexistence of com-
mon and contrasting interests and identities are
all reasons to expect unity and division to occur
successively or simultaneously" (1996: 43).
Representation: Conceptualizing, Mapping,
and Theorizing Paradox
Exemplars indicate several strategies for rep-
resentation—the daunting task of conveying the
intricate and seemingly absurd nature of para-
dox. These strategies for conceptualizing, map-
ping, and theorizing paradox share a conscious
awareness of space and/or time, for effectively
depicting paradox requires detailing its context
and multiple dimensions, as well as providing a
dynamic view of tensions, defenses, and their
management.
Conceptualizing paradox entails building
constructs that accommodate contradictions.
Rather than polarize phenomena into either/or
notions, researchers need to use both/and con-
structs for paradoxes, allowing for simultaneity
and the study of interdependence. For example,
to depict the paradoxical nature of conflict,
Amason (1995) moved to a higher level of ab-
straction capable of encompassing its multiple
dimensions. By distinguishing between cogni-
tive and affective conflict, he illustrated how
Lewis 773
conflict both enhances and destroys groups.
Cognitive conflict denotes task-oriented de-
bates that are focused on perceptual diversity^
differences in how actors perceive a situation—
and might extend the scope and creativity of
decision making. In contrast, affective conflict is
emotional and aimed at personal disputes, in-
tensifying actors' defenses and tendency to
cling to extant frames.
Similarly, Quinn (1988) conceptualized perfor-
mance along multiple dimensions: external and
internal, control and flexibility. Denison et al.
(1995), in turn, sought to test Quinn's model in a
study of leadership and behavioral complexity.
Rather than forming a 2 x 2 matrix, they used
multidimensional scaling to portray leadership
as a circular and spatial pattern of eight con-
flicting roles that may coexist (e.g., innovator/
coordinator, director/mentor). The operation-
alized construct expands understandings of
distinct and mutually exclusive leadership
styles, enabling examination of whether highly
effective leaders behave more paradoxically
than those who are less effective.
Strategies for mapping paradox provide po-
tentially valuable means of representing ten-
sions and defenses in action. Ropo and Hunt
(1995), for instance, used grounded theory devel-
opment to study entrepreneurship over time. An-
alyzing a series of events that took place during
the deregulation of two Finnish banks, they
mapped the complexity of reinforcing cycles.
Unlike static and discrete models of entrepre-
neurship, they posed a provocative image of
a holistic and dynamic process. They mapped
vicious and virtuous cycles, depicting how the
banks came to manage the pull between com-
petitiveness/noncompetitiveness and change/
stability by reframing actors' views of strategic
decision making, the organization, and the
banking industry.
Similarly, Argyris (1993) detailed a method of
mapping conversations. Documenting the con-
text, behavior, and consequence of successive
statements serves to organize conversational
processes into an explanatory model of how de-
fenses reinforce patterns of behavior. Such mod-
els might illustrate how vicious cycles ensue
when actors cling to existing frames of reference
and avoid critical self-reflection and more open
discourse. Models are then testable by seeing if
an actor's pattern persists in differing conversa-
tions, or if closely related others (e.g., members
774 Academy of Management Review
of the same group) share the pattern. The result
is a rich image of the nature and dynamics of
mixed messages.
Theorizing paradox entails developing a
frame that encompasses opposites, enabling a
more complicated understanding of their coex-
istence and interrelationships {see Bouchikhi,
1988, and Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). According to
Argyris (1993), a theory of paradox accounts for
the seemingly illogical, ideally by depicting ten-
sions, defenses, and their management in dy-
namic and multidimensional detail. Such theo-
rizing requires theorists to think paradoxically
themselves: to work toward tensions and the
anxieties they provoke in search of insightful
interconnections.
In the reviewed works researchers theorize
paradox through rich case studies (Leonard-
Barton, 1992; Westenholz, 1993), anthropological
inquiry (e.g., Koot, 1996; Ybema, 1996), or litera-
ture reviews {e.g.. Miller, 1993; Sitkin & Bies,
1993). Rather than parse organizational life into
polar distinctions and rational prescriptions
that mask complexity, they depict the chal-
lenges of plurality and change embedded in
cognitive, emotional, and social processes. As
Poole and Van de Ven (1989) suggest, many use
notions of time and/or space to explain paradox.
For example, some depict how opposing ele-
ments may emanate from different locales in the
organization, such as in private or public con-
versations {Ybema, 1996), or from the percep-
tions of managers or subordinates (Martin, 1992).
Others depict contradictions operating at vari-
ous points in time—for example, organizations
appear stable and calm at one point and dy-
namic and chaotic the next {e.g., Ropo & Hunt,
1995).
CONCLUDING NOTE
As dramatic changes in technology, competi-
tion, and globalization continue, "the Chinese
curse, 'May you live in interesting times' seems
to have become almost too real" {Kets de Vries,
1995: xiii). Indeed, the rising intricacy, ambigu-
ity, and diversity of organizations place a pre-
mium on researchers' abilities to think paradox-
ically: to live and even thrive within the
plurality and changes of organizational life and
help practitioners do likewise. Building this ca-
pacity requires confronting our own defenses—
the desire to overrationalize and oversimplify
October
the complications of organizational life—and
learning to explore the natural ebb and flow oi
tensions.
Increasingly, organization theorists claim that
making sense of rising plurality and change
might require alternative frames—frames that
help researchers and practitioners explore par-
adox {e.g.. Ford & Ford, 1994; Handy, 1994; Quinn
et al., 1994). Such frames are appearing in other
areas of management. For example, Csikszent-
mihalyi (1997) used paradox to examine every-
day tensions. He explored how self-reflecting on
the often conflicting yet interwoven facets of
professional life might help individuals find the
flow between work and family, theory and prac-
tice, research and teaching. Lewis and Dehler
(in press) applied a paradox framework to man-
agement education, posing a strategy and exer-
cises for examining tensions, the defenses they
provoke, and means of managing paradox in the
classroom. A "pedagogy of paradox" may help
complicate students' perceptions of what it
means to manage in a turbulent world.
This article furthers development of a compre-
hensive guide to exploring paradox in research.
I advocate using paradox as much more than a
label; as a thought-provoking tool or perspec-
tive. The paradox framework serves as a lens for
examining surprising findings and seemingly
absurd aspects of organizational life. This
framework might help researchers address
what tensions exist, why they may fuel reinforc-
ing cycles, and how actors may manage para-
doxes to foster change and understanding. In
the reviewed exemplars scholars offer models
for future inquiry, illustrating the value of using
paradox to examine multifaceted and puzzling
phenomena. These studies provoke new in-
sights into learning, organizing, and belonging
by offering what appear initially as counterin-
tuitive premises but, on deeper reflection, seem
inherent aspects of daily life. The overview of
research strategies broadly outlines means of
identifying and representing paradox. In combi-
nation, this still-emerging guide might help re-
searchers actively seek out paradox or explain
anomalies as they arise to extend understand-
ings of contradictory emotions, demands, and
practices—understandings more in tune with
the paradoxical nature of individuals, groups,
and organizational life.
2000
Life, disconcertingly and reassuringly, is bigger
than straight-line logic, it conforms with a kind of
curved logic which turns things around and often,
before you become aware of it, turns them into
their opposites.
Pacifists become militants.
Freedom fighters become tyrants.
Blessings become curses.
Labor saving devices become intolerable
burdens.
Help becomes hindrance.
More becomes less (VanderBroek, quoted in
Thompson, 1988).
REFERENCES
Amason, A. C. 1996. Distinguishing the effects of functional
and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making:
Resolving a paradox (or top management teams. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 39: 123-148.
Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action: A guide (o overcom-
ing barriers to organizational change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C, & Schon, D. A. 1996. Organizational /earning II:
Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Bartunek, J. M. 1988. The dynamics of personal and organi-
zational reframing. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.),
Paradox and transiormation: Toward a theory oi change
in organization and management: 137-162. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco:
Chandler Publishing.
Bouchikhi, H. 1998. Living with and building on complexity:
A constructivist perspective on organizations. Organiza-
tion, 2: 217-232.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. 1988. Organizational paradox
and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron
(Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of
change in organization and management: 12-18. Cam-
bridge, MA: Ballinger.
Cannon. T. B. 1996 Welcome (o the revolution: Managing
paradox in the 21st century. London: Pitman.
Csikszentmihaiyi, M. 1997. Finding How: The psychology of
engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Davis. A. S.. Maranville, S. J.. 8f Obloj, K. 1997. The paradox-
ical process of organizational transformation: Proposi-
tions and a case study. Research in OrganizationaJ
Change and Development. 10: 275-314.
Denison, D., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. 1995. Paradox and
performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in
managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6: 524-540.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Westcott, B. J. 1988. Paradoxical de-
mands and the creation of excellence: The case of just-
in-time manufacturing. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron
(Eds.), Paradox and transiormation: Toward a theory of
change in organization and management: 169-194.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Lewis 775
Farson, R. 1996. Management of the absurd: Paradoxes in
leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ford. I. D., & Backoff, R. W. 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: 81-
121. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction,
and attraction in change. Academy of Management
Review, 19: 756-795.
Hampden-Turner, C. 1981. Maps of the mind. New York: Mac-
millan.
Handy, C. 1994. The age of paradox. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard Business School Press.
Harris, A. S. 1996. Living with paradox: An introduction to
Jungian psychology. Albany, NY: Brooks/Cole.
Hatch. M. J. 1997. Irony and the social construction of contra-
diction in the humor of a management team. Organiza-
tion Science, 8: 275-288.
Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich. S. B. 1993. Spontaneous humour as an
indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations.
Organization Studies, 14: 505-526.
Hofstadter, D. R. 1979. Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden
braid. New York. Vintage Books.
Kelly. G. 1955. The psychology of personal constructs. New
York: Norton.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. 1995. Organizafiona/ paradoxes: Clin-
ical approaches to management. New York: Routledge.
Klein, J. A. 1994. The paradox of quality management: Com-
mitment, ownership, and control. In C. Heckscher &
A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization:
New perspectives on organizational change: 178-194.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Koot. W. 1996. The rhetoric of synergy and the practice of
increasing ethnic rivalry in organization. In W. Koot,
I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.), Contradictions in context:
Puzzling over paradoxes in contemporary organizations:
63-86. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Koot, W., Sabelis, I., & Ybema, S. 1996. Epilogue. In W. Koot,
I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.), Contradictions in context:
Puzzling over paradoxes in contemporary organizations:
208-212. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Leonard-Barton. D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidi-
ties: A paradox in managing new product development.
Strategic Management Journal. 13: 111-125.
Lewis, M. W.. & Dehler, G. E. In press. Learning through para-
dox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions
and complexity. Journal of Management Education.
Lewis. M. W., & Grimes, A. J. 1999. Metatriangulation: Build-
ing theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 24: 672-690.
Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. 1993. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of
Management Review. 18: 116-138.
776 Academy of Management Review October

Morgan, G. 1997. /mages of organization. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Murnighan. J. K.. & Conlon, D. E. 1991. The dynamics of
intense work groups: A study of British string quartets.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 36: 165-186.
Naisbitt, J. 1994. Global paradox. New York: Avon.
O'Connor, E. S. 1995. Paradoxes of participation: Textual
analysis and organizational change. Organization Stud-
ies, 16: 769-803.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build
management and organization theories. Academy of
Management Review. 14: 562-578.
Putnam, L. L. 1986. Contradictions and paradoxes in organi-
zations. In L, Thayer (Ed.). Organization communica-
tions: Emerging perspectives: 151-167. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.
Quinn, R. E. 1988. Beyond rafionaJ management San Fran-
cisco: lossey-Bass.
Ouinn, R. E., Kahn, J. A.. & Mandl, M. J. 1894. Perspectives on
organizational change: Exploring movement at the in-
terface. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior:
The state of science: 109-133. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Eribaum Associates.
Ropo, A., & Hunt, J. G. 1995. Entrepreneurial processes as
virtuous and vicious spirals in a changing opportunity
structure: A paradoxical perspective. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 19(3): 91-111.
Rothenberg. A. 1979. The emerging goddess. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Sabelis, I. 1996. Temporal paradoxes: Working with cultural
diversity in organizations. In W. Koot, I. Sabelis. &
S. Ybema (Eds.). Contradictions in context: Puzzling over
paradoxes in contemporary organizations: 171-191.
Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Schneider, K. J. 1990. The paradoxical self: Toward an under-
standing of our contradictory nature. New York: Insight
Books.
Sitkin. S.. & Bies. R. J. 1993. The legalistic organization: Def-
initions, dimensions, and dilemmas. Organization Sci-
ence: 4: 345-351.
Smith. K. K., & Berg. D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of group life. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teunissen. J. 1996. Paradoxes in social science and re-
search. In W. Koot. L Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.), Con-
tradictions in context: Puzziing over paradoxes in con-
temporary organizations: 17-38. Amsterdam: VU
University Press.
Thompson. M. P. 1988. Being, thought, and action. In
R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and
transformation: Toward a theory of change in organi-
zation and management: 123-136. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Vince. R., & Broussine. M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attach-
ment: Accessing and working with emotions and rela-
tions underlying organizational change. Organization
Studies, 17: 1-21.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H.. 8f Fisch. R. 1974. Change:
Principles of problem formation and problem resolution.
New York: Norton.
Weslenholz, A. 1993. Paradoxical thinking and change in
frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14: 37-58.
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick. K. E.. & Westley. F. 1996. Organizational learning:
Affirming an oxymoron. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy. & W. R.
Nord (Eds.). Handbook of organization studies: 440-458.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ybema, S. 1996. A duck-billed platypus in the theory and
analysis oi organizations: Combinations of consensus
and dissensus. In W. Koot. I. Sabelis, & S. Ybema (Eds.).
Contradictions in context: Puzzling over paradoxes in
contemporary organizations: 39-61. Amsterdam: VU Uni-
versity Press.

Marianne W. Lewis is currently an assistant professor of management at the Univer-

sity of Cincinnati. She received her Ph.D. in management irom the University of
Kentucky. In her research she explores tensions, conflicts, and paradoxes that impede
and enable innovation, particularly in the areas of advanced manufacturing technol-
ogy, product development, and organization theory.