640843

research-article2016
OSS0010.1177/0170840616640843Organization StudiesHargrave and van de Ven

Article

Organization Studies
2017, Vol. 38(3-4) 319­–339
Integrating Dialectical and © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Paradox Perspectives on Managing sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0170840616640843
Contradictions in Organizations www.egosnet.org/os

Timothy J Hargrave
Central Washington University, USA

Andrew H Van de Ven

University of Minnesota, USA

Abstract
We present a typology and process model that integrate dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing
contradictions in organizations. Whereas paradox research depicts tensions between contradictory elements
as irreconcilable and best managed through acceptance and synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays the
relationship of such elements as adversarial and transformed through conflict. Our integrated typology and
process model account for both dialectical and paradox approaches to managing contradictions and also identify
two approaches, assimilation and adjustment, which combine the two. The model also identifies a key contingency,
the expected distribution of power between contradictory elements, as a key influence on actors’ approaches to
managing contradictions. For paradox researchers our integrated model emphasizes the need for more attention to
the political, institutional, and social contexts of contradictions, practices for managing conflict, and transformation
of organizational contradictions. Our integrated model suggests that dialectics researchers pay attention to the
strategies managers use to productively manage tensions between contradictory elements, take a contingent view
of transformation, and recognize that acceptance of contradiction may play a role in transformation. Hence our
integrated model suggests a broadened agenda for both paradox and dialectics researchers.

Keywords
dialectics, contradiction, conflict, paradox, transformation

Introduction
In their study of the conflict between local television stations and the network that owned them,
Lourenço and Glidewell (1975) illustrate the management of the organizational contradiction
between autonomy and control. While the local stations sought autonomy, the network sought to

Corresponding author:
Timothy J Hargrave, College of Business, Central Washington University, Shaw-Smyser 129, 400 E. University Way,
Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA., V5A 1S6.
Email: hargravet@cwu.edu
320 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

exert control over the stations by supervising their operations, becoming involved in personnel
decisions, and auditing their books. The local stations resisted these incursions, however, and lob-
bied for more autonomy. In addition, although they accepted the network’s legitimate authority,
they resisted network demands that they perceived to be over-reaching. Through its resistance, one
of the stations won authority for an important personnel decision, procured the resources necessary
to customize its advertising, and gained control over its own news programming. Lourenço and
Glidewell conclude that through conflict the parties developed innovative new arrangements which
consisted of “a broader and more complex, mutually balancing power base and increased options
for all involved, and … a deeper conception of legitimate authority, based on just demands for the
expertise necessary to the overall common welfare, rather than on position alone” (Lourenço &
Glidewell, 1975, p. 504).
Organizational contradictions, such as this tension between autonomy and control, can be
viewed through multiple lenses. Management scholars taking a paradox perspective start from the
premise that managers are most effective when they accept contradictory elements as simultane-
ously valid (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002) and manage them through a
combination of differentiation and synergy, rather than trying to resolve the tension between them
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011). In
contrast, as illustrated by the example above, dialectical perspectives view the dynamic relation-
ship of these elements not as persistent coexistence in tension but rather as involving transforma-
tion through conflict. According to dialectical theory, innovation occurs through a process in which
one element or “affirmation” unintentionally gives rise to its own opposite or “negation,” produc-
ing conflict and transformation—the establishment of a new element which transcends yet also
preserves the affirmation and negation. The coercive control by the television network studied by
Lourenço and Glidewell bred a counter-expression of belief in local control, and a process of con-
frontation that produced new arrangements which neither station owners nor network managers
had initially foreseen, but which encompassed both of their interests.
In this paper we take the view that paradox and dialectics provide different yet equally and
simultaneously valid lenses for understanding organizational contradictions. We seek to advance
scholarship on the management of contradictions by identifying the similarities, differences, and
complementarities of the two perspectives, and by presenting a typology and model which inte-
grate them. Contradictions are defined as dynamic tensions between opposite elements that together
form a unity and logically presuppose each other for their very existence and meanings (Werner &
Baxter, 1994). They are inherent in human knowledge of reality as well as instantiated in practices,
arrangements, and artifacts.
We recognize that some scholars have taken other views on integrating dialectics and paradox
perspectives. Clegg and colleagues (2002) argue that the paradox perspective should supersede the
dialectical perspective, writing that “the extremes of paradox are too pervasive to be integrated or
willed away” (p. 491), as dialectical scholars might wish. They reason that the dialectical perspec-
tive has been “technologically outflanked in a world saturated with co-evolutionary presence, vir-
tuality and simultaneity” (p. 498), and that upon close inspection synthesis is a bottom-up process
which “does not create a new entity replacing and incorporating the two opposites that ground it”
through dialectical transformation, but “rather emerges in the relationship between these two
poles” (p. 495). Here we take a different viewpoint. We argue that transformation does not emerge
“in the relationship” between the two poles, but rather is a new element which emerges from the
relationship of the two poles. We note that the literature has provided instructive examples of the
transformation of organizational contradictions (e.g., Lourenço and Glidewell’s (1975) study high-
lighted above). In addition, we note that the realities of organizational life differ greatly across
contexts, and that while some parts of the world may be “saturated with co-evolutionary presence,
Hargrave and van de Ven 321

virtuality, and simultaneity,” much of it is not, and therefore that the dialectical sequence has not
been “technologically outflanked.”
Our integrated process model accounts for the dialectical sequence of affirmation, negation, and
transformation, the paradoxical sequence of acceptance and synergy, and sequences which include
elements of both. In addition, the model specifies an important contingency, the expected distribu-
tion of systemic power, which influences the approach taken to managing contradiction. Drawing
on dialectics, the model also provides a role for the unintended consequences of action in under-
standing the outcomes of processes of managing contradictions. The model has important implica-
tions for dialectics and paradox researchers.
In the next section we briefly review and compare the paradox and dialectical perspectives, and
then in the third section we present our typology and integrated model. In the paper’s fourth and
final section we discuss the implications of our model and offer conclusions.

Juxtaposing Paradox and Dialectical Perspectives

Contradictions have long been at the heart of organizational theory. Pioneering scholars such as
Taylor (1911), Fayol (1949), Follett (1941), and Barnard (1938) all were concerned with the ten-
sion between organizational effectiveness and employees’ welfare. Lewin (1943) conceptualized
organizations as balanced between forces of resistance and change. The predecessors of structural
contingency theory (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Galbraith, 1977; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Thompson,
1967) addressed the question of how to design organizations so that they achieve both operational
stability and responsiveness to a changing environment. “Old” institutionalists such as Selznick
confronted the “fundamental paradox” between structure and agency, characterizing this tension as
“aris[ing] from the fact that rational action systems are inescapably imbedded in an institutional
matrix” (Selznick, 1948, p. 25).
More recently organizational scholars have begun to study a range of organizational contradic-
tions, including the tensions between exploitation and exploration (Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez,
& Farr, 2009; Farjoun, 2010; March, 1991), competition and cooperation (Lado, Boyd, & Hanlon,
1997; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992), structure and agency (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Garud, Hardy,
& Maguire, 2007; Walker, Schlosser, & Deephouse, 2014), organizations’ private and social mis-
sions (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Donaldson & Preston 1995; Smith, Gonin, & Besharov, 2013),
and designed versus emergent structures (de Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004; Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher,
2008; Weick, 1998, 2004).
Researchers have examined the management of organizational contradictions by applying para-
dox and dialectical perspectives. As we discuss below, the two provide alternative lenses; the para-
dox perspective focuses on the coexistence and ongoing management of tensions between opposite
elements, while the dialectical perspective views these same tensions as transformed through con-
flict. This notwithstanding, the paradox and dialectical perspectives should not be viewed as
dichotomous and mutually exclusive views on organizational contradictions. In fact, the two enjoy
a rich and extensive shared history and, due to variety in each, have taken overlapping theoretical
perspectives. Much of the scholarship in the late 1980s and early 1990s nominally taking a paradox
perspective incorporated dialectical themes as well; for example, Quinn and Cameron’s seminal
1988 book took the view that paradoxes could be transformed. Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that
dialectical synthesis is temporary because it preserves underlying core tensions. Poole and Van de
Ven (1989) and Bledow and colleagues (2009) refer to dialectical synthesis as one means of
addressing paradox.
While we remain cognizant of the variation within and overlap of perspectives, as we proceed
in this paper we emphasize the particular streams within each perspective which enable us to draw
322 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

contrasts and build richer theory. We now review these paradox and dialectical perspectives as they
have become stylized in the literature. Table 1 compares the two perspectives as well as a third one,
which we develop in this paper.

The paradox perspective

The paradox perspective has deep historical roots. It is often associated with Eastern philosophical
traditions such as Taoism, which posits that “the two sides of any contradiction exist in an active
harmony, opposed but connected and mutually controlling” (Lewis, 2000; Peng & Nisbett, 1998,
p. 743). The perspective also is found in Western philosophy dating back to Ancient Greece
(Hughes & Brecht, 1975; Salmon, 2001). Existential philosophers such as Sartre (1993) were con-
cerned with paradoxes such as the predicament that humans cannot escape their own freedom, and
paradox played a central role in the psychotherapeutic theories and practices of Jung, Freud, Adler,
and others (Smith & Berg, 1987, chapter 2). Paradox provided a source of creativity for artists such
as Picasso and van Gogh and musicians including Beethoven and Mozart (Rothenberg, 1979).
Paradox was introduced into the management and organizations literature in the late 1980s
(Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Quinn & Cameron, 1988; Van de Ven,
1983). A paradox is defined as “contradictory yet interrelated elements—elements that seem logi-
cal in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously” (Lewis, 2000, p. 760).
While paradox research in management and organization studies encompasses a rich variety of
theoretical perspectives and methods, in this paper we focus on a stream of research that takes a
more prescriptive and managerial perspective. This stream, which we trace to the work of Lewis
(2000), focuses on how organizations experiencing persistent tensions between seemingly irrecon-
cilable contradictory elements accept and productively manage these tensions (Clegg et al., 2002;
Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Characterization of contradictions. Paradox scholars take the view that contradictory elements
which inherently are interdependent and together form a unity tend to be perceived by actors as
distinct (Lewis, 2000). These perceptual contradictions then are embedded by actors in material
structures, cultures, practices, and artifacts within the organization (Clegg, 2002; Johnston &
Selsky, 2005; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Westenholz, 1993). The tension between these
contradictory elements becomes salient to actors under conditions which accentuate the elements’
functional interdependence. Smith and Lewis (2011) identify these conditions as a plurality of
perspectives, resource scarcity, and rapid change. An example of an organizational paradox is the
paradox of learning, which refers to the tension between stability and predictability on the one
hand and generativity and adaptability on the other (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Cognitive acceptance. Paradox research finds that initially, the actors experiencing newly sali-
ent contradictions cannot reconcile contradictory elements and react to them with confusion, igno-
rance, anxiety, and defensiveness (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013; Lewis, 2000; Smith &
Berg, 1987; Vince & Broussine, 1996). As they come to recognize the interdependence and persis-
tent coexistence of the elements, however, these actors come to “accept paradox and ‘critically
examin[e] entrenched assumptions to construct a more accommodating perception of opposites’”
(Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 764). Lüscher and Lewis (2008) describe a cognitive process of “spar-
ring” in which linear thinking and decision paralysis give way to reflexive and strategic question-
ing, and actors facing seemingly impossible choices come to accept paradox and view these choices
as more tenable. This cognitive ability has been described as “paradoxical cognition” (Lewis,
2000), “both/and” thinking (Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, & Thakor, 2006), and “either/and” think-
ing, with “either” indicating that the opposed elements are distinct and “and” signifying their unity
(Li, 2011; Jing & Van de Ven, 2014).
Hargrave and van de Ven 323

Table 1.  Comparison of Paradox, Dialectical, and Integrated Perspectives.

Paradox Perspective Dialectics Perspective Integrated Model

Theoretical Prescriptive, Descriptive, historical. Focus Descriptive, multi-
focus organizational. Focus on how contradictions are level. Focus on how
on how organizations transformed over time organizations manage
should manage socially embedded
contradictions contradictions, and how
these contradictions
change over time
Characterization Socially constructed. Socially constructed, Socially constructed,
of contradictions Conceptual opposites embedded, and complex. embedded, and complex.
are embedded Conceptual opposites are Conceptual opposites
in organizational embedded in material artifacts, are embedded in material
artifacts, practices, and practices, and arrangements, as artifacts, practices, and
arrangements. Tensions well as in society’s institutional arrangements, as well as
between contradictory orders and the “social totality.” in society’s institutional
elements become As contradictions deepen, they orders and the “social
salient due to functional become salient to actors whose totality.”
interdependence interests are not served by the
dominant element
Sensemaking Acceptance. Managers Resistance. Proponents of the Boundedly rational
initially perceive affirmation seek to maintain partisan managers accept
contradictory elements dominance, while proponents or resist coexistence of
to be irreconcilable of the negation seek to contradictory elements
but come to accept challenge and overcome the based on institutional and
their coexistence affirmation organizational histories,
as they recognize which shape sensemaking
their importance and approaches
interdependence
Agency Synergy. Actors Mobilization and conflict. Boundedly rational,
differentiate Partisan actors engage in partisan actors engage
and coordinate politics and conflict in an in synergy, mobilization
contradictory elements effort to dominate and and conflict, adjustment,
in order to produce overcome proponents of the or assimilation based
mutually advantageous contradictory element on their sensemaking
practices and approaches and the
arrangements distribution of systemic
power
Outcome of Ongoing reproduction Conflict between contradictory Dynamic tension
process of of dynamic tension elements unintendedly between contradictory
change between contradictory produces a new element, the elements can be
elements transformation, which serves reproduced, revised, or
as the new “affirmation” as the transformed. Outcomes
dialectical process recycles are difficult to predict
because management
approaches have
unintended consequences

Paradox research has emphasized that the cognitive ability to accept the coexistence of contra-
dictory elements sets the stage for using the tension between these elements as an opportunity for
creativity. Quinn and Cameron (1988) argue that acceptance can induce “a synergistic or ‘flow’
324 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

state” (Csikzentmihalyi, 1976) in which “complex contradictory forces … produce a source of

creative energy” (p. 298). Eisenhardt and Wescott (1988) elaborate that the simultaneous pursuit of
multiple, contradictory goals drives the questioning of assumptions, broad search, greater insight
into phenomena and relationships, and continuous experimentation. They note that “the major
effect of creating paradoxical demands is creativity. People are forced to look beyond the obvious
and to reexamine … basic assumptions” (p. 173).
Synergy. Researchers have found that organizations tend to address paradoxes through syn-
ergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011), which we define as coordinating distinct
contradictory elements in ways that are mutually advantageous.1 We take “synergy” to include
forms of joint action such as cooperation and collaboration as well as dialogical approaches to
problem solving such as the strategic dialectical inquiry of Socrates, and Argyris and Schön’s
(1996) action-science dialog (Nielsen, 1996). Paradox research has emphasized that synergy is
a messy, ongoing process in which managers seek to “work through” (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008,
p. 221) uncertainty and organizational conflict and politics (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009;
Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith & Lewis, 2011;
Walker et al., 2014) to construct “a more workable certainty” that enables action (Lüscher &
Lewis, 2008, p. 228).
Jarzabkowski and colleagues’ (2013) study of “Telco” attests to the messiness of synergy.
Telco is a telecommunications company which undertook a major restructuring in response to
a new regulation which required it to grant fair access to all broadband and telephony provid-
ers. This regulation produced tensions between the company’s divisions, with the new
Distribution division motivated by the goal of fair access and the other divisions motivated by
commercial objectives and wanting preferential treatment. Jarzabkowski and colleagues find
that after conflict between the divisions became so hostile that Telco performance was severely
threatened, divisional managers began to engage in dialog and “intensive interworking
between divisions … such as working together to build more functionality into systems”
(Jarzabkowski et  al., p. 261).
Synergy does not necessarily involve direct joint action but may also involve structural
arrangements such as task forces and central control (Lindblom, 1963). Smith and Lewis’s
dynamic equilibrium model describes synergy as a process in which managers purposefully iter-
ate between contradictory elements in order to ensure attention to both. This enables them to
avoid “paralyzing and often vicious cycles” and instead initiate “virtuous cycles” of learning and
enhanced organizational performance (Smith & Lewis, 2011, p. 761). Smith and Tushman (2005)
advocate that the dual goals of exploitation and exploration be pursued through separate organi-
zational architectures and integrated by top management. The study by Jarzabkowski and col-
leagues, just cited, found that after Telco’s senior managers realized that conflict threatened
Telco’s goal achievement, they developed new rules which enabled divisional managers to
accommodate each other’s objectives, relaxed rules which obstructed them from doing so, and
arbitrated disputes. This paradoxical work enabled divisional managers to collaborate while pre-
serving their identities and achieving their goals.
Paradox researchers also have found that synergy may take the form of complex leadership
behaviors which incorporate contradictory elements. For example, Cameron and colleagues (2006)
identify autonomous engagement, practical vision, teachable confidence, and caring confrontation
as “paradoxical behaviors” that leaders engage in to effectively manage contradictions between
differentiated units. Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009) find that the leaders of innovative product
design firms employ pragmatic idealism, paradoxical vision, supportive communication, and com-
plementary tactics at multiple levels of the organization to achieve both exploration and exploita-
tion goals.
Hargrave and van de Ven 325

Dialectics
The dialectical perspective offers an alternative view of the management of tensions between con-
tradictory elements. Like the paradox perspective, the dialectical perspective is rooted in the prem-
ise that human understanding of reality is composed of logically and socially constructed
contradictions—opposed yet interdependent elements which presuppose each other for their exist-
ence and meanings. In dialectics, however, the relationship of contradictory elements plays out
through a process in which actors espousing one element, the affirmation, engage in conflict with
actors promoting the opposed element, the negation. This conflict releases the tension between the
contradictory elements and produces a new set of arrangements and practices, the transformation.2
While there exists a broad variety of dialectical perspectives (Nielsen, 1996), here we focus on the
historical perspectives of Hegel and Marx, which provide a clear contrast to the paradox
perspective.

Characterization of contradictions: Social construction, embeddedness, and

complexity
According to dialectical perspectives, organizational contradictions arise when actors socially con-
struct as contradictory the relationships among and between the discursive and material elements
of organizations (Putnam, 2015), within and across levels of analysis (Benson, 1977). Hence, an
organizational actor may experience a contradiction when she perceives a tension between an
organizational unit’s practices and the unit’s rhetoric used to legitimate those practices; between
two practices employed in that unit; between the elements (material and/or discursive) of two or
more organizational units located at a single level of analysis (e.g., the contradictory goals and
practices of two functional departments or operating units); between the material and/or discursive
elements of organizing units located at different levels of analysis (e.g., the practices of a particular
operating unit and the espoused logic of the parent organization); and between organizational ele-
ments and elements of the organization’s environment (e.g., an organization’s practices and insti-
tutional prescriptions of appropriate behavior). Hence we adopt the view of Putnam (2015) who,
building upon her work with Fairhurst (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2014),
posits a dialectical relationship in which the discursive and material elements of organizations are
mutually influential and constitutive.
Benson (1977) stressed the socially embedded and complex nature of organizational con-
tradictions. He recognized that any given contradiction is inextricably linked to many other
contradictions, both within the organization and at other units and levels of analysis, which
compose the “social totality.” Building upon Benson (1977), Seo and Creed (2002) situate
organizational contradictions within structural contradictions in society. They invoke Friedland
and Alford (1991), who theorized the contradictions within and between society’s major insti-
tutional orders (e.g., the church, the state, markets, professions). Seo and Creed identify con-
tradictions between the material and discursive elements of institutional orders (e.g., corporate
rhetoric about employee empowerment which is at odds with rigid operating procedures) as
well as contradictions between institutional orders (e.g., tension between the workplace pre-
scriptions of the church and market). Hence, from a dialectical perspective a particular organi-
zational contradiction such as pressure to both earn high profits and make investments in
environmental protection pits internal constituencies against one another, creates tensions for
the organization in its interactions with disparate external stakeholders, and invokes societal
tensions regarding, for example, the purpose of and relationship between business and
government.
326 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

Politics and conflict. Unlike the paradox perspective which, as discussed, sees contradiction as
addressed through synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays contradiction as addressed through
processes of politics and conflict. Dialectical theory posits that power initially is concentrated
behind one element of the contradiction, the affirmation. Expression of this element, however,
inevitably invites the emergence of the contradictory element, the negation. According to Hegel
this summoning is inevitable because the affirmation is inherently incomplete and imperfect as a
principle for action. Hence, for example, an emphasis on stable conditions invites recognition of
the need for change, an emphasis on a common organizational culture calls out an expression of
distinct sub-cultures, and a focus on the goal of shareholder value alone breeds concern about the
interests of employees and other stakeholders.
According to dialectical perspectives, actors espousing the negation develop the critical under-
standing that the affirmation does not serve their beliefs and interests and then engage in political
action to build power so that they may challenge the affirmation. This political action is referred to
as praxis, which is “the free and creative reconstruction of social patterns on the basis of a reasoned
analysis of both the limits and the potentials of social forms” (Benson, 1977, p. 5.) Proponents of
the negation become motivated to engage in praxis as contradictions become more pronounced
(e.g., the link between poor working conditions and shareholders’ growing wealth is brought to
light.) Social movements and institutional scholars have emphasized that framing and resource
mobilization are central to the efforts of proponents of the negation to build political power.
Framing involves shaping the accepted meanings of social issues and phenomena (Benford &
Snow, 2000; Gamson, 1995; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; Snow & Benford, 1988), while resource
mobilization refers to building the networks of actors, organizations and resources needed to chal-
lenge incumbents and press for change (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006; McAdam, McCarthy, &
Zald, 1996; McCarthy & Zald, 1973; Seo & Creed, 2002). Like the affirmation, the negation gives
rise to its opposite. It motivates the “negation of the negation,” or efforts by proponents of the
affirmation to intentionally suppress, oppress, or remove groups espousing the negation (Pratt &
Foreman, 2000).
This view that actors make sense of the relationship of contradictory elements as adversarial
may be traced back to the dialectical perspective’s emphasis on the social embeddedness and com-
plexity of contradictions. Because the actors who experience contradictions are embedded in par-
ticular organizational cultures and institutional orders (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton,
Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012), they have learned and come to take for granted particular assump-
tions about what is right and true. Further, they have made material commitments to these assump-
tions. As a result, they are prone to resist rather than accept the contradictory element. This is not
to say that these actors are incapable of reflection upon and changes in their beliefs and actions, but
rather to say that reflection tends to follow rather than precede the deepening of contradiction
(Benson, 1977; Marx, 1979 [1859]; Seo & Creed, 2002).

Transformation.  According to Marxian and Hegelian dialectical models, conflict between the affir-
mation and negation has the unintended consequence of producing a synthesis or transformation.
This transformation is the reconciliation or dissolution of contradiction, or “the ordering of parts to
form a new whole or ‘gestalt’” that neither side could have produced itself (Lourenço & Glidewell,
1975, p. 489; italics in original). Once produced, transformation becomes the new affirmation
which is subsequently negated, as the dialectical process recycles (Benson, 1977; Hargrave & Van
de Ven, 2006; Nielsen, 1996; Seo & Creed, 2002; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Transformation can
occur only if proponents of both the affirmation and negation have the power to effectively con-
front each other, i.e., only in cases where proponents of the negation have succeeded in building
the power needed to challenge the affirmation. When power is concentrated, the negation remains
Hargrave and van de Ven 327

latent, and the tension between opposites is not engaged, and does not lead to transformation. Poole
and Van de Ven (1989) address transformation when they propose that conceptual paradoxes can
be resolved through the introduction of a new concept or perspectives which “dissolves or super-
sedes the opposition” between contradictory elements (p. 574).
The transformational potential of conflict lies in its ability to release emotional energy (Mason,
1996). When actors are energized by conflict, their group identity, commitment, and cohesiveness
are strengthened. Drawing on Marx, Coser notes that “only by experiencing … antagonism … does
the group (or class) establish its identity” (1957, p. 205), and, citing the sociologist of nationalist
and race movements, Robert Park (1931, pp. 95–110), writes that the effect of struggle is “to arouse
in those involved a lively sense of common purpose and … the inspiration of a common cause”
(Coser, 1957, p. 205). Philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel argued that conflict “allows us to
prove our strength consciously and only thus gives vitality and reciprocity to conditions from
which, without such corrective, we would withdraw at any cost” (Simmel, 1955, p. 19).
These effects of conflict translate into innovation and transformation by awakening actors from
cognitive and behavioral inertia. Psychological research shows that groups that experience dissent
demonstrate greater information-processing intensity at the individual level and greater discussion
intensity at the group level (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008, p. 156). Coser, challenging Parsons’ struc-
tural-functionalism, wrote that “conflict… prevents the ossification of the social system by exert-
ing pressure for innovation and creativity,” and that social systems are “in need of conflict if only
to renew [their] energies and revitalize [their] creative forces” (Coser, 1957, p. 197). Dewey called
conflict the “sine qua non of reflection and ingenuity” (1930, p. 300).

Unintended consequences.  Unintended consequences play an important role in the dialectical pro-
cess of transformation (Kaufmann, 1965; Schneider, 1971). Unintended consequences arise when
dominant actors promoting the affirmation undermine themselves by arousing the negation, and
then again when mobilization of the negation has the unintended consequence of breeding counter-
resistance by the affirmation. In their study of a biotechnology strategic alliance, de Rond and
Bouchikhi (2004) document an instance of an affirmation giving rise to its own negation; they find
that cooperation among firms reinvigorated competition among them, leading to the collapse of the
alliance. As noted, the dialectical perspective also depicts transformation as an unintended conse-
quence of the conflict between affirmation and negation.
Anticipating complexity theory and behavioral decision-making theory, Merton (1936) attrib-
uted unintended consequences in part to the cognitive limitations and biases of managers, which
render managers unable to fully anticipate future conditions and the consequences of their actions.
Further, Merton recognized that actors sometimes are more concerned with the short-term impacts
of their actions than the long-term impacts, and make decisions based on values commitments
without due regard to consequences. Merton also tied unintended consequences to the complexity
of the situations in which these managers act. Because organizational contradictions are embedded
in complex systems of related contradictions within and across levels of analysis, efforts to manage
them can bring in complicating issues and actors which were seemingly distant or unforeseen.

Summary: Comparing paradox and dialectical perspectives

Table 1 presented above summarizes the foregoing discussion by comparing the paradox and dia-
lectical perspectives.
Theoretical focus and characterization of contradictions. Table 1 shows that the dialectical and
paradox perspectives share the premise that organizational actors make sense of their realities in
terms of logical and socially constructed contradictions which are interdependent and presuppose
328 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

each other for their very existence and meanings. The two perspectives provide very different
lenses for understanding this phenomenon, however.
The paradox perspective provides a prescriptive, managerial lens which focuses on understand-
ing the cognitions, practices, and organizational arrangements which managers individually and
collectively employ to manage but not resolve the contradictions which they confront. These con-
tradictions arise for managers because of the functional interdependence of the contradictory ele-
ments. In contrast, the dialectical perspective takes a descriptive approach which situates
organizational contradictions within society’s institutional orders and webs of related contradic-
tions. From this perspective, any particular organizational contradiction not only involves different
elements within the organization but also exposes institutional, societal, and even world-level con-
tradictions. Contradictions become salient as a consequence of the concentration of power behind
one element of the contradiction. Proponents of the subordinate element of the contradiction come
to recognize that their interests are not served.
Sensemaking. Paradox researchers have described how managers, although they tend to view
contradictory elements as irreconcilable, accept the co-presence of these elements and seek ways
to cope with the tension between them and simultaneously accomplish both. The dialectical per-
spective also starts from the premise that actors are partisans who promote one element at the
expense of the other. Yet whereas the paradox perspective depicts actors as accepting the coexist-
ence of contradictory elements and seeking synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays these
actors as opposing each other and engaging in conflict. The dialectical perspective explains that
actors tend to maintain this adversarial view of contradictory elements because they are deeply
embedded in particular institutions and histories.
Agency. Paradox scholars portray actors as responding to contradiction by employing synergy to
establish practices and arrangements which are advantageous to both contradictory elements. This
approach may be read as a teleological, boundedly rational approach to making complex decisions
that simultaneously satisfy opposing objectives. Strategies such as coping with (Vlaar, Van den
Bosch, & Volberda, 2007) and working through paradox (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) evoke decision-
making models which emphasize that conditions of complexity and rapid change necessitate itera-
tive, incremental approaches to decision making (Mintzberg, Raisinghani, & Théorêt, 1976). In
contrast, the dialectical perspective is concerned with the political activities that actors take to main-
tain and change those conditions. According to the dialectical perspective, partisan actors seek to
defeat proponents of contradictory elements rather than accepting coexistence with them.
Outcomes. The paradox perspective sees conflict as contributing to “vicious cycles” which
diminish organizational effectiveness, and it prescribes the ongoing reproduction of dynamic ten-
sion between opposites through differentiation and synergy. In contrast, the dialectical perspective
views ongoing dynamic equilibrium as impossible, and it views conflict as inevitably producing
transformation. And whereas the paradox perspective says little about the unintended consequences
of actions, the dialectical perspective portrays unintended consequences of agency as having a
major role in the production of transformation.

An Integrated Typology and Process Model of Managing

Contradictions
We now present a descriptive typology and process model for managing contradictions that inte-
grate key elements of the paradox and dialectical perspectives. The typology is provided in
Figure 1. The integrated process model is described in the fourth column of Table 1 and repre-
sented in Figure 2.
Hargrave and van de Ven 329

Distribution of systemic power

Stable, symmetrical Unstable and/or

asymmetrical

Sensemaking Acceptance Q1 Q2 Assimilation

approach both/and Paradoxical management
(synergy)

Adversarial Q3 Q4
Mutual adjustment Dialectics (mobilization
and conflict)

Figure 1.  Approaches to Managing Contradiction.

In integrating the paradox and dialectical perspectives, we are guided by the premise that the
two perspectives do not describe distinct processes, but rather that each recognizes one aspect of
contradictions and the processes by which they play out, while missing the other aspect. We trace
this both/and viewpoint that paradox and dialectical processes are interdependent elements of a
larger process to leading thinkers in sociology such as Simmel (1955), Dewey (1930), and Cooley,
who observed that “conflict and co-operation are not separable things, but phases of one process
which always involves something of both” (Cooley, 1918, p. 39).

Typology
To motivate our integration, we present a typology of approaches to managing contradiction that
incorporates elements of both perspectives (see Figure 1). The typology identifies two factors
which influence actors’ approaches to managing contradictions: actors’ sensemaking approaches
(the vertical axis) and the distribution of systemic power (the horizontal axis). The paradox per-
spective traditionally links both/and acceptance of opposing elements of a contradiction to syn-
ergy (quadrant 1 of Figure 1), while the dialectical perspective links adversarial resistance to
mobilization and conflict (quadrant 4). Decoupling sensemaking from action and treating them
as independent enables us to identify two further strategies for managing contradiction, assimila-
tion (quadrant 2) and mutual adjustment (quadrant 3), which link dialectical and paradox models
yet have been largely overlooked by the dialectical and paradox perspectives. We now discuss
how the underlying dimensions of the typology give rise to its quadrants.
Sensemaking approach. As discussed above, the paradox perspective depicts actors as making
sense of contradictions through both/and acceptance, while the dialectical perspective portrays
them as employing either/or resistance. By sensemaking approach, we refer to the processes by
which organizations enact and interpret their environments (Weick, 1995). Weick notes that sense-
making by actors within organizations is shaped by intersubjective communication with other
actors; control mechanisms such as roles, routines, and standard operating procedures; and cultur-
ally accepted meanings. As we have noted above, these meanings are drawn from the social and
institutional contexts in which organizations and actors are embedded.
Distribution of systemic power. Following dialectical theory, we see actors as embedded in
and responsive to political conditions. Specifically, we link actors’ approaches to managing contra-
diction to the distribution of systemic power between contradictory elements. Systemic power
refers to institutionalized power that operates automatically through rules and routines which are
330 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

Figure 2.  Process Model of Managing Contradictions.

seemingly independent of the interests of particular actors yet advantage some actors over others
(Berger & Luckmann, 1967; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Jepperson, 1991; Lawrence, 2008; Meyer
& Rowan, 1977). The mimetic, normative, and coercive institutional mechanisms identified by
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) are all forms of systemic power, in that they “regulate … behavior
… through social and culture systems rather than through enforcement by a self-interested actor”
(Lawrence, 2008, pp. 175–6). Systemic power may be contrasted with “episodic power,” which
Lawrence defines as “relatively discrete, strategic acts of mobilization” (2008, p. 174). Episodic
power is the ability to use political tactics to influence other actors.
We propose that actors take different actions to manage contradictions when the distribution of
systemic power is stable and symmetrical as opposed to when it is unstable and/or asymmetrical.
Under stable and symmetrical systemic power relations, proponents of both elements accept the
persistent coexistence of opposite elements because they have determined that conflict will be
fruitless. Therefore they conclude that coordinating through synergy (quadrant 1) or mutual adjust-
ment (quadrant 3) with the other party is the most effective means of proceeding. In contrast, when
the balance of systemic power between the two elements is either unstable or asymmetrical (or
both), the proponents of one or both of the contradictory elements are motivated to try to change
the balance of power rather than accept it and work within it. Following dialectics, we expect that
when systemic power is distributed asymmetrically, proponents of the subordinate element will
recognize that their interests are not being served, and will mobilize and use political tactics to try
to make institutional change (quadrant 4). At the same time, under such conditions proponents of
the dominant element will be motivated to negate the subordinate element and maintain their posi-
tion (assimilation, quadrant 2).
We see numerous factors influencing the stability of power relations, i.e., actors’ expectations
about whether the distribution of systemic power can be maintained or changed. We expect that
one key factor would be the relative degree of episodic power that proponents of each element
perceives itself to possess, with each side calculating whether it has the skills and resources
needed to achieve institutional changes that favor it. Another factor is the degree of resource
Hargrave and van de Ven 331

dependence. To the extent that the proponents of the contradictory elements each need the other
to accomplish their goals, the more likely they will be to coordinate their efforts rather than trying
to engage in conflict (Van de Ven & Walker, 1984). Other factors could include the degree of
complexity and pace of change. Highly complex, rapidly changing circumstances will tend to
provoke acceptance of existing power relations because they increase decision-making uncer-
tainty, increase the possibility of significant unintended consequences, and lead managers to con-
clude that gains from conflict may be ephemeral (Duncan, 1972; Tung, 1979). Finally, we expect
that the distribution of systemic power will be more stable under munificent conditions, because
proponents of contradictory elements need not battle for resources to achieve their goals under
such conditions (Pondy, 1968.)
As discussed above, the synergy and conflict strategies (quadrants 1 and 4 in Figure 2) have
been the main approaches taken by paradox and dialectical scholars for managing contradiction.
Figure 2 illustrates our argument that each of these strategies applies in particular combinations of
sensemaking approach and distribution of systemic power. Moreover, our integrated model
includes two further approaches to managing contradiction—assimilation and mutual adjust-
ment—which combine paradoxical and dialectical elements. Because these have not been dis-
cussed above we address them now.
Assimilation (quadrant 2 of Figure 2). We propose that when power is distributed relatively
asymmetrically, the acceptance of the coexistence of contradictory elements is expressed not
through synergy, as the paradox perspective posits, but rather through assimilation. Assimilation
occurs when practices and arrangements which have been associated with a subordinate element
come to be incorporated into the dominant element (Thornton et al., 2012). Proponents of the
dominant element use assimilation when they accept aspects of the contradictory element as legiti-
mate and useful, yet also seek to maintain their dominant position. To do so they adopt these
aspects by justifying them in the logic of the dominant element. Thus, under assimilation, the logic
of the subordinate element is not expressed, and the tension between the contradictory elements is
not engaged. We distinguish assimilation from cooptation (Selznick, 1948), which is the tactic of
absorbing threatening actors into the organization’s leadership. Cooptation is a form of ceremonial
rather than substantive adoption of subordinate elements.
While to our knowledge the strategy of assimilation is not well represented in dialectics and
paradox research, it is increasingly gaining purchase in institutional theory. Murray (2010) shows
how patenting practices, which reflect a market logic, were assimilated into the professional logic
of academia rather than replacing it. Arjaliès (2010) demonstrates that dominant actors in France’s
investment field assimilated the practice of socially responsible investing into the dominant market
logic. York, Hargrave, and Pacheco (2015) show that although wind energy initially was promoted
in Colorado because of its environmental benefits, dominant actors in the state justified their initial
adoption of wind solely on economic grounds.
Mutual adjustment (quadrant 3 of Figure 2). We propose that under conditions of a stable and
symmetrical distribution of systemic power, contradictory elements are not always coordinated
through synergy, as the paradox perspective proposes, because actors may make sense of the
relationship of the elements as adversarial. Although proponents of the two elements may recog-
nize their interdependence and accept their coexistence, they may not see each other as legitimate,
or may not view forms of synergy such as cooperation and collaboration as useful to their own
goal achievement. Therefore, rather than engaging in synergy, they may manage their interde-
pendence through mutual adjustment (Lindblom, 1963). Lindblom notes that mutual adjustment
involves a range of negotiating tactics including bargaining, partisan discussion, compensation,
and reciprocity, which can produce mutually satisfactory but not necessarily mutually advanta-
geous outcomes. He also writes that partisan mutual adjustment includes means which do not
332 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

involve direct coordination such as accommodation, i.e., not interfering with the actions of pro-
ponents of the contradictory element.
In sum, recognizing that dialectical conflict and paradoxical management occur under particular
political conditions opens up the possibility that actors employ other strategies under different
conditions. We have posited that either/or resistance sensemaking is expressed not through conflict
but rather through mutual adjustment under a symmetrical distribution of systemic power, and that
both/and acceptance is expressed not as synergy but rather as assimilation under an asymmetrical
distribution of power. Thus our typology incorporates both the ideal-type paradox and dialectical
perspectives discussed above and two more possibilities which combine these perspectives.

Process model
We now present our typology in the form of a process model which depicts the sequences of events
by which contradictions in organizations play out over time. By “process” we mean the sequence
of events which includes the emergence of the contradiction as salient, sensemaking of the contra-
diction by the actors experiencing it, actions these actors take to address the contradiction, and the
outcomes of those actions. By “outcomes” we refer not to the influence of managerial actions on
the achievement of organizational goals, but rather to the influence of actions on the contradiction
itself, and specifically whether the tension between contradictory elements is reproduced, revised,
or transformed.
Our integrated process model starts from the assumption that when contradictions first become
salient due to functional interdependence, resource scarcity, and rapid change, boundedly rational
actors will respond by promoting the element they favor and seeking to overcome the contradictory
element. This assumption follows directly from the paradox perspective, which depicts managers
confronting newly salient contradictions as struggling to overcome their own cognitive limitations,
partial viewpoints, anxiety, and defensiveness. It is also consistent with the dialectical perspective,
which describes the proponents of both the affirmation and negation as taking partisan perspectives
due to their embeddedness in particular institutional orders.
In the sensemaking stage of the model, actors either accept or resist the persistent coexistence
of contradictory elements. They do so based upon their organizational, social, institutional, and
historical embedding, as described by the dialectical perspective. Actors then take actions to man-
age the contradiction based upon both their sensemaking approaches and the expected distribution
of systemic power, as discussed above. Each of the four management approaches—synergy, assim-
ilation, adjustment, and conflict—links to a particular combination of sensemaking approach and
expected power distribution.
The feedback loops in Figure 2 illustrate that synergy, assimilation, and adjustment strategies
preserve the salient tension between contradictory elements. This is consistent with the paradox
perspective. The figure also depicts conflict as transforming this tension and setting the stage for a
new dialectical process, as posited by the dialectical perspective.
The model also accounts for the unintended consequences of action. First, it incorporates the
dialectical sequence of affirmation, negation, and transformation in which unintended conse-
quences play a central role, as discussed above. In addition the model captures unintended conse-
quences by allowing for the possibility that the management strategies identified do not necessarily
reproduce themselves, and could instead lead to the use of other strategies. In other words, the use
of a particular management approach can trigger changes in actors’ sensemaking approaches or the
expected distribution of systemic power, thereby leading to a change in management approach.
For example, in one possible sequence, efforts at synergy could undermine themselves and lead
to adjustment or conflict by revealing historical institutional antagonisms and engendering
Hargrave and van de Ven 333

defensiveness, adversarial mindsets, and “disillusionment about cooperation” (Lourenço &

Glidewell, 1975, p. 503). In another sequence, mobilization and conflict could lead to a symmetri-
cal distribution of power and the use of a synergy approach. In this sequence, proponents of the
subordinate contradictory element would first build the power needed to challenge the dominant
element, and then the two sides would begin to work together rather than continuing to engage in
conflict. They would do so because they had concluded that they could not defeat the other, and/or
because superordinate coordinating mechanisms and practices had been imposed.
Finally, another path that involves unintended consequences is one in which synergy produces
transformation. Here, the acceptance of paradox unleashes creative efforts which produce break-
through ideas, practices, and arrangements which enfold the contradictory elements. This is the
sequence which paradox researchers have long described (Cameron & Quinn, 1988). We expect
that such transformations are more likely to be produced when acceptance and synergy follow from
conflict, i.e., when proponents of both elements conclude that they cannot defeat the other side and
then are able to harness the energy and ideas that conflict has produced and channel them into
mechanisms such as dialogs and working groups.
A key contingency which influences the outcomes of the four management approaches is the
managerial and political skill of the actors involved. The outcomes of conflict will depend upon the
ability of proponents of a subordinate element to employ collective action tactics such as framing
and resource mobilization to challenge and overcome dominant actors (Benford & Snow, 2000;
McAdam et al., 1996; McCarthy & Zald, 1973; Snow & Benford, 1988), as well as the ability of
these dominant actors to employ assimilation or resist the negation through coercion and accom-
modation (Gramsci, 1971). As our earlier literature review reveals, the outcomes of synergy will
depend on managerial skills such as the ability to overcome defensiveness, an openness to new
ideas, creativity, and the ability to build working relationships with proponents of contradictory
elements. Superordinate managers can play a key role in establishing and enforcing coordinating
mechanisms.

Discussion and Conclusion

The question of how organizations manage tensions between contradictory elements is becoming
more important as such tensions become increasingly salient due to globalization, rapid change,
and more intense competition. Both the paradox and dialectical perspectives provide insights into
how organizational actors manage these tensions. We have presented an integrated model which
incorporates dialectical sequences of events, paradoxical sequences of events, and combinations of
them. By drawing upon the dialectical perspective’s emphasis on politics and power, we are able
to establish political boundary conditions for dialectical and paradox models, and also identify two
approaches to managing contradictions—assimilation and adjustment—which are not captured by
the ideal-type models.
Our integrated model provides a more comprehensive picture of the management of contradic-
tion than either the dialectical or paradox perspective does alone. It (1) focuses on the management
of salient organizational contradictions while setting them in broader political, institutional, and
social context; (2) depicts managers both accepting and resisting contradictory elements; (3) iden-
tifies two approaches to managing contradiction—assimilation and mutual adjustment—which
combine dialectical and paradox elements, and which have not been identified in the dialectics and
paradox literatures; and (4) explains both the reproduction of tensions between contradictory ele-
ments, and the transformation of these tensions.
Implications for paradox research. Our integrated model has important implications for
paradox researchers. First, it suggests that paradox research has been undertaken against the
334 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

backdrop of a stable, symmetrical distribution of power. This boundary condition rarely has
been addressed by paradox researchers (but see Clegg et al., 2002 for an exception). In this
way the integrated model suggests that the paradoxical “virtuous cycle” of acceptance and
adjustment is not feasible when only one element of the contradiction enjoys power, or when
power is shared but some actors believe that they can achieve dominance through conflict.
Hence the integrated model suggests that paradox researchers give more attention to political
conditions.
Second, because it portrays the contradictions experienced in organizations as socially embed-
ded and complex, the integrated model explains why the contradictions that managers face seem
intractable, and the actors involved intransigent. Indeed, the very idea of managing contradictions
seems to be impracticable when one recognizes that any particular organizational contradiction is
tangled in a knot of organizational, institutional, societal, and even world-historical contradictions.
By drawing upon the dialectical perspective to take this into account, the integrated model explains
why managers often can only cope with rather than try to resolve organizational contradictions.
Hence the model suggests that paradox researchers give greater attention to the broader institu-
tional and social contexts in which organizational contradictions are embedded, and how these
conditions influence management practices.
Third, the integrated model extends the paradox perspective by suggesting that conflict can be
a generative force. As we have discussed, conflict can awaken cognitive and emotional energy and
stimulate creativity, leading to innovative approaches to managing contradictions that would not
have emerged in its absence. We have proposed that acceptance and synergy may be more produc-
tive when preceded and fueled by the energy of conflict. Conflict can play an instrumental role in
the management of contradictions, and does not always precipitate destructive “vicious cycles.” In
short, we hope that paradox researchers will accept the contradiction between acceptance and
resistance, and give attention to the practices which managers employ to stimulate and produc-
tively use conflict as a source of innovation. Such research would give attention to the ways in
which subordinate actors challenge authority.
Finally, our integrated model suggests the possibility that organizational contradictions can be
transformed and not merely lived with. By bringing transformation back in, we return paradox
scholarship to its roots. We note that Quinn and Cameron’s seminal 1988 book was titled Paradox
and Transformation, and we hope that our integrated model stimulates renewed attention to trans-
formation among paradox researchers. Recognition of the instrumentality of “coping with” and
“working through” paradox need not crowd out the possibility that acceptance and synergy can
lead to the production of all-new practices and arrangements.
Implications for dialectics research. The integrated model also carries important implications
for dialectics researchers. These spring from the model’s managerial character, taken from the
paradox perspective. The model suggests that managers are not helpless in the face of complex
historical forces but rather are agents who seek to solve the practical problems they face. Managers
are responsible to their organizations’ stakeholders for accomplishing organizational missions,
goals, and strategies, and executing this responsibility often requires dealing with the unintended
effects of actions and trying to make seemingly intractable problems into “workable certainties”
(Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). And although it may be difficult because they have their own subjective
perspectives that link back to particular institutional orders and histories, managers can attempt to
develop paradoxical thinking to understand and even sympathize with contradictory elements,
wrestle with the creative tension between them, and establish organizational arrangements and
processes which enable ongoing problem-solving.
The integrated model also suggests that acceptance and synergy may in some cases be mecha-
nisms of transformation. As described above, this would occur when actors who have been locked
Hargrave and van de Ven 335

in conflict conclude that they cannot defeat each other and decide to channel the energy and ideas
produced by conflict into productive working relationships. This suggests the possibility that trans-
formation, such as that described by Lourenço and Glidewell and highlighted at the start of this
paper, may be produced not from conflict alone but instead through a process in which conflict
gives way to synergy. In short, researchers need to be alert to the possible role of acceptance and
synergy in dialectical processes.
In sum, our integrated model of managing contradictions suggests a broadened research agenda
for all scholars of managing contradictions, whether they situate themselves as dialectics or para-
dox researchers (or both). This agenda would give attention to conflict, power, politics, institu-
tions, and unintended consequences, as well as managerial strategies for making sense of and
acting on contradictions in the face of these forces. Such research could take as its starting point
Simmel’s observation that “in every state of peace the conditions of future conflict, and in every
conflict the conditions of future peace, are formed” (Simmel, 1955, p. 109).

Author Note
Timothy J Hargrave completed his contribution to this paper while at Simon Fraser University, Canada and
Seattle University, USA.

Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the editors of the special issue and particularly Dr Marianne Lewis for their expert
guidance. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of our manuscript for the constructive
advice. Finally, we greatly appreciate useful comments on earlier versions of this paper from Drs Robin
Holt, Rick Delbridge, Tim Edwards, Scott Johnson, and Eero Vaara.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.

Notes
1. Thus we use synergy to refer to means rather than ends: According to our usage, actors engage in synergy
rather than achieve synergy.
2. Hegel’s model is often rendered as one of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. He did not use these terms, pre-
ferring instead the formulations Abstract-Negative-Concrete, and Affirmation-Negation-Transformation
(Nielsen, 1996.)

References
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexter-
ity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Arjaliès, D. (2010). A social movement perspective on finance: How socially responsible investment mat-
tered. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 57–78.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Battilana, J., & D’Aunno, T. (2009). The paradox of embedded agency: Straw man argument or central epis-
temological issue? In T. Lawrence, B. Leca, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency
in institutional studies of organization (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
336 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment.
Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 1–21.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their var-
ied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364–381.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectical perspective on innovation:
Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology,
2, 305–337.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). Management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
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 manage-
ment (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Cameron, K. S., Quinn, R. E., DeGraff, J., & Thakor, A. V. (2006). Competing values leadership: Creating
value in organizations. Cheltenham, UK Edward Elgar.
Clegg, S. (2002). General introduction. In S. Clegg (Ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 1–8).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human
Relations, 55, 483–503.
Cooley, C. H. (1918). Social process. New York: Scribner & Sons.
Coser, L. A. (1957). Social conflict and the theory of social change. British Journal of Sociology, 8, 197–207.
Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1976). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynam-
ics across multiple levels of analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of
conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 3–54). New York, London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
De Rond, M., & Bouchikhi, H. (2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15,
56–69.
Dewey, J. (1930). Human nature and conduct. New York: The Modern Library.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective
rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and
implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncer-
tainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 313–327.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Wescott, B. J. (1988). Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence. The case
of just-in-time manufacturing. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation:
Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 169–193). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory,
14, 5–26.
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35,
202–225.
Fayol, H. (1949) [1916]. General and industrial management. London: Pitman.
Follett, M. P. (1941). Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. H. Metcalf & L.
Urwick (Eds.). London: Pitman.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contra-
dictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Dimaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis
(pp. 232–263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gamson, W. A. (1995). Constructing social protest. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social move-
ments and culture (pp. 85–106). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Hargrave and van de Ven 337

Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduc-
tion to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28, 957–969.
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Tuertscher, P. (2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness.
Organization Studies, 29, 351–371.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional change. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 864–888.
Hughes, P., & Brecht, G. (1975). Vicious circles and infinity. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How
organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11, 245–280.
Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P.J.
DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago, London:
University of Chicago Press.
Jing, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2014). A yin-yang model of organizational change: The case of Chengdu Bus
group. Management and Organization Review, 10, 29–54.
Johnston, S., & Selsky, J. W. (2005). Duality and paradox: Trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice.
Organization Studies, 27, 183–205.
Kaufmann, W. (1965). Hegel. New York: Doubleday.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents:
A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22, 110–141.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.
Lawrence, T. B. (2008). Power, institutions and organizations. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin-
Andersson, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 170–197).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “field at a given time.” Psychological Review, 50, 292–310.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management
Review, 25, 760–776.
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and
widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 127–149.
Li, P. P. (2011). Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric implications of
Yin-Yang balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 849–872.
Lindblom, C. E. (1963). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. New
York: Free Press.
Lourenço, S. V., & Glidewell, J. C. (1975). A dialectical analysis of organizational conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 20, 489–508.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sense making: Working
through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 221–240.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
Marx, K. (1979) [1859]. Preface, in A contribution to the critique of political economy. International
Publishers.
Mason, R. O. (1996). Commentary on varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 5, 293–299.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures,
and framing processes—toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements. In D.
McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements:
Political opportunities, mobilizing structures and cultural framing (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1973). The trend of social movements in America: Professionalization and
resource mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Corporation.
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological
Review, 1, 894–904.
338 Organization Studies 38(3-4)

Meyer, J. R., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théorêt, A. (1976). The structure of “unstructured” decision processes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246–275.
Murray, F. (2010). The oncomouse that roared: Hybrid exchange strategies as a source of distinction at the
boundary of overlapping institutions. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 341–388.
Nielsen, R. P. (1996). Varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management Inquiry, 5, 276–292.
Park, R. (1931). Personality and cultural conflict. Publications of the American Sociological Society, 25,
95–110.
Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American
Psychologist, 54, 741–754.
Pondy, L. R. (1968). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12,
296–320.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories.
Academy of Management Review, 14, 562–578.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 18–42.
Putnam, L. L. (2015). Unpacking the dialectic: Alternative views on the discourse-materiality relationship.
Journal of Management Studies, 52, 706–716.
Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2014). Revisiting “Organizations as discursive constructions”: Ten years
later. Communication Theory, 25, 375–392.
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: A framework for viewing organization
and management. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory
of change in organization and management (pp. 289–308). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations.
Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498.
Rothenberg, A. (1979). The emerging goddess. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Salmon, W. C. (2001). Zeno’s paradoxes, second edition. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.
Sartre, J-P. (1993). Essays in existentialism. New York: Citadel Press.
Schneider, L. (1971). Dialectic in sociology. American Sociological Review, 36, 667–678.
Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 25–35.
Seo, M., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.
Simmel, G. (1955) [1907]. Conflict. New York: Free Press.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and move-
ment in group dynamics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. (2013). Managing social-business tensions. A review and research
agenda for social enterprises. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 407–442.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organ-
izing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381–403.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions. A top management model for
managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance and participant mobilization. International
Social Movement Research, 1, 197–218.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach
to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tung, R. (1979). Dimensions of organizational environments: An exploratory study of their impact on organi-
zation structure. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 672–693.
Hargrave and van de Ven 339

Van de Ven, A. H. (1983). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. (Book
review.) Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 621–624.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 510–540.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Walker, G. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational coordination. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 598–621.
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense, and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions
and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17, 1–21.
Vlaar, P. W. L, Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Towards a dialectic perspective on for-
malization in interorganizational relationships: How alliance managers capitalize on the duality inherent
in contracts, rules, and procedures. Organization Studies, 28, 437–466.
Walker, K., Schlosser, F., & Deephouse, D. L. (2014). Organizational ingenuity and the paradox of embedded
agency: The case of the embryonic Ontario solar energy industry. Organization Studies, 35, 613–634.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9,
543–555.
Weick, K. E. (2004). Rethinking organizational design. In R. Boland, Jr. & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as
designing (pp. 36–53). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Werner, C. M., & Baxter, L. A. (1994). Temporal qualities of relationships: Organismic, transactional, and
dialectical views. In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, second
edition (pp. 323–379). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies,
14, 37–58.
York, J., Hargrave, T., & Pacheco, D. (2015). Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind
energy field. Forthcoming in Academy of Management Journal. Published online June 8, 2015.

Author biographies
Timothy J. Hargrave is Assistant Professor at Central Washington University.
Andrew H. Van de Ven is the Vernon H. Heath Professor of Organizational Innovation and Change in the
Carlson School of Management of the University of Minnesota.