Commentary: Paradox in Practice

• Author: Simon Wilson
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12691
• Published date: 01 March 2017
• Date: 01 March 2017

Paradox in Practice 273

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 2, pp. 273–274. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12691.

Simon Wilson is director of Wilson

Sherriff, a consultancy business based in the

United Kingdom that helps organizations in

different sectors collaborate.

E-mail : simon.wilson@wilsonsherriff.com

Commentary

I read Siv Vangen ’ s article “Developing Practice-

Oriented Theory on Collaboration: A Paradox

Lens” from a practitioner ’ s perspective. Specifically,

I “tested” the thinking against my recent and current

experience working as a consultant on health

and social care integration projects in the United

Kingdom and working with the collaborative business

relationships guidelines (Standard 11000) from the

British Standards Institution.

My test, therefore, is whether the paradox lens can

be helpful to practitioners seeking to collaborate as

well as to those—such as consultants or advisers—

seeking to support collaboration. Many consultancy

models and BS 11000 itself conform to what the

article calls “linear sequential approaches.” The idea

of collaboration as inherently paradoxical is not one I

hear often around the table as senior managers discuss

collaboration. Here I set out some reflections on the

article ’ s five propositions based on practice.

The article first proposes that naming paradoxes in

collaboration can contribute to sensemaking. This

conforms to my experience as a practitioner. In the

context of health and social care integration, for

instance, collaboration aims to maximize effectiveness

and results across a system. It may also reduce

control and impacts for parts of the system—the

protection/integration dynamic set out in the article.

Recognizing this paradox is important, but it also

poses practical problems for senior leaders committed

to the achievement of both organizational KPIs (key

performance indicators) and collaboration—the latter

often framed in the context of transformative change.

The language of paradox is much less likely to be used

in this type of discussion than the linear sequential

models of program and performance management,

resource allocation, and deliverables. Acknowledging

the importance of paradox would imply culture

change in many organizational contexts.

Second, the article urges using the paradox lens to

support research and collaboration. My experience

suggests that this, too, would pose a challenge,

but the issues identified are relevant. In particular,

using paradox to spur management reflection and

action could help shift thinking. We observe the

development of collaborative processes between

organizations without challenging the existing mind-

set and behaviors within collaborator organizations. A

clearly defined “management model” would be useful

here with some key steps and methods identified to

support practice. Some further thoughts in this regard

appear below.

Third, to reduce practitioners’ anxiety, the article

proposes a strong message that there may not be

one optimal solution. Having recently supported a

group of practitioners through an intensely anxious

process of defining collaboration in complex and

detailed structure documents, I can see the value

of this. I would draw a parallel with the value of

management models such as the stages of group

formation, which help reassure people that what

they are experiencing is “normal.” Such a process

might well help collaborating parties choose

between different suboptimal solutions. This could

be especially useful in a context of rigorous resource

constraints.

Elaborating on the kinds of tensions that might

arise (proposition 4) also has value. In particular,

the notion of a “well-expressed tension” is helpful in

that it would help normalize what occurs in every

collaborative experience. Practical guidance and

definitions would be useful here both to legitimize

and support this type of activity.

At this point, I was looking for proposition 5 to set

out ways of managing those tensions and to help

practitioners develop collaborations taking account of

the paradox lens. With the proposition as currently

articulated, the article does begin to move toward

a recognizable model for identifying and moving

toward collaborative advantage. This could be built

upon to provide practical guidance. However, it is

Simon Wilson

Wilson Sherriff , United Kingdom

Paradox in Practice