"The problem is not the problem. The problem is how you think about the problem."

—Paul Watzlawick

I’ve spent most of my career involved in organizational strategy, where the prevailing adage is: Strategy is about making choices. We will do this, but we won’t do that. We’ll play here, but not there. In strategy, and often in organizations generally, we demand that leaders make clear decisions. This can create the impression that not making definitive choices means you are not leading. Sometimes, this is the case. But in this article, I’d like to explore the times when it’s not.

These situations are paradoxes. Many researchers have written about them, sometimes referring to them as polarities or dilemmas that require dialectic thinking or ambidextrous leadership. In this article, I use the term paradox and draw heavily on the work of Marianne W. Lewis, who has been researching and writing about paradoxes in organizations for decades.

What is a paradox?

You have likely experienced paradoxes in your work life, even if you didn’t recognize them as such at the time. For example:

• You have been asked to tackle a critical challenge for your organization — do you aim to differentiate yourself by going solo or establish yourself as a team player and seek collaborators?

• You are part of a team creating a new strategy — do you focus on innovations that may only pay off after a decade or aim for short-term growth of existing product lines?

• You are a new manager — do you provide clear and explicit direction to your direct reports or aim to empower them to find their own solutions?

What these situations all have in common, and how Lewis and colleagues define a paradox is, "contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time." Emphasized in the definition are two factors that can help us differentiate a paradox, for which a preferred choice often doesn't exist, from a problem, which can be solved by making tradeoffs and selecting an option amongst alternatives.

The first differentiating factor is the interdependence of oppositional aspects of the situation. This interrelatedness creates a situation in which "either/or" choices can lead to poor outcomes because although you can choose between them, it's unlikely you can choose well. For example, consider a tension that often arises in strategy development. Do we exploit and expand our current strengths or explore and develop new capabilities and lines of business? Can we consistently choose one over the other and maintain the health of the organization? Likely not.

The second sign of a paradox is that the tensions it creates are ongoing — they persist despite all attempts to resolve them. For example, consider persistent conflicts that often arise between sales and engineering teams or those who focus on fundraising in nonprofits and those who concentrate on service delivery. 

Lewis and colleagues have also identified that paradoxes can arise in different aspects of organizational life — belonging, learning, organizing, and performing. (See summary graphic at right for more detail.) It's essential to recognize that at any time, several paradoxical forces can be at work simultaneously, both for the organization and individuals within it.

What are the benefits of embracing paradoxes?

Based on our own experiences in organizations, we can likely identify some risks of solely choosing one side when faced with a paradoxical situation. For instance, organizations that continuously choose stability and predictability over innovation and change likely flirt with stagnation and slow decline. Conversely, organizations can get addicted to chasing the latest and greatest. Such constant change can lead to organizational environments where employees feel unmoored and performance suffers due to a lack of sustained effort to build core competencies. The answer seems to be then, that we need both to change and not change at the same time.

This is an uncomfortable reality. However, research suggests that leaders who learn how to navigate it can create value for their organizations.

Yan Zhang and colleagues have undertaken several studies aimed at identifying outcomes associated with paradoxical leadership actions. For example, in one study, they found that paradoxical leadership amongst managers was associated with increased ability, adaptivity, and proactivity of the employees they managed. Another study by Zang found positive outcomes (R&D investment, market share, corporate reputation) in organizations led by those who exercised a paradoxical mindset, which focused on both the present and the future and on the internal organization and the broader environment.

What strategies can be used to create value from paradoxical tensions? 

Managing tensions created by contradictory aspects of a paradox can be challenging. However, those who do it well tend to leverage various strategies over time to dynamically harness the paradox to create benefits.

Some strategies to consider include:

• Learn to spot paradoxes when they arise and set expectations for how they will be managed. It can feel different to value or accept the tensions created by contradictions, rather than aim to resolve them. However, research indicates building awareness of paradoxes amongst managers can provide them the mental space required to consider alternative ways of dealing with seemingly "impossible" situations. For instance, in rejecting the idea that an organization will choose short-term or long-term perspectives, or provide control or flexibility, organizations can accept that both must inform organizational strategies and leadership.

• Creating a common goal to which multiple, oppositional efforts can contribute. For instance, an overarching goal of creating value for customers may unify separate efforts to create efficiencies and increase quality.

• Undertake different efforts at different times or assign separate groups to undertake oppositional efforts. Separating competing aspects of the paradox allows organizational leaders to value both types of actions while creating helpful boundaries amongst those who undertake them. For instance, a manager may decide to provide a team a great deal of autonomy in addressing a problem but will provide direction if and when the team gets stuck. An organization may create a team to explore and identify innovations to develop future business while assigning growth goals to other teams working on existing product lines. 

Lewis and colleagues suggest that a critical aspect of managing paradoxes is doing so dynamically. They suggest that when faced with paradoxes leaders should aim to be “consistently inconsistent.” Meaning, it’s not about doing the same thing every time, but finding the right thing to do for the moment, and adapting as needed in the future. Something those of us who lead organizational change are very familiar with, indeed.

Related Articles

References

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.

Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California management review, 56(3), 58-77.

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and" leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62-70.

Zhang, Y., & Han, Y. L. (2019). Paradoxical leader behavior in long-term corporate development: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 42-54.

Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538-566.

Photo Credit: Photo by Sora Shimazaki from Pexels