Navigating a Dialectical Journey on Paradox Research: An Introduction to the Point–Counterpoint on Paradox Theory

• Date: 01 December 2018
• Published date: 01 December 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12404

Navigating a Dialectical Journey on Paradox Research:

An Introduction to the Point–Counterpoint on Paradox

Theory

Dries Faemsa and Igor Filatotchevb

aWHU – Otto Be isheim School of Man agement; bKing’s College L ondon

It is widely acknowledged that organ izations face multiple tensions both interna lly and

externally. The tension between max imizing economic goals a nd responding to social

responsibilities, the need to ma nage the exploitation–exploration dichotomy, and the

challenge of deali ng with cooperative as well a s competitive forces in external rela-

tionships are some examples of the chal lenges that organizat ions face in this respect.

Paradox theory, with its frami ng tensions as a collection of interdependent elements that

simultaneously oppose and support each other, has provided import ant insights into

how tensions within and between orga nizations emerge, evolve, and can be managed.

In this Point–CounterPoint collection, two teams of authors aim to enrich our the-

oretical understanding of paradoxes, providing two different but complementary per-

spectives. In the Point article, Schad and Bansal criticize extant paradox research for

its epistemological bias. In particular, they claim that current research tends to focus on

salient, perceived tensions, while ignoring more latent ones. As an alternative, they pro-

pose a systems perspective that goes beyond epistemological understandings of tensions

and explores complex interconnections that constitute the ontological domain. They also

provide two strategies that can help to illuminate the ontological features of tensions.

First, they discuss ‘zooming out’ as a strategy to see new relationships in a complex

system of interconnected elements. Second, they highlight a ‘zooming in’ strategy to

uncover dominant tensions in complex systems. Together these strategies can help devel-

oping a more holistic understanding of paradoxes that does not only take into account

perceived tensions, but also considers the underlying systems.

In their CounterPoint article, Raisch, Hargrave, and Van de Ven take a different ap-

proach toward enriching our theoretical understanding of paradoxes. Whereas the point

article stresses the need to broaden paradox research by considering both epistemological

and ontological dimensions, the CounterPoint article moves into the opposite direction,

Journal of Management Studies 55:8 Decemb er 2018

doi : 10.1111/jom s.1240 4

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and S ociety for the Advancement of Ma nagement Studies

Address for repr ints: Dries Faems, WHU – Otto Bei sheim School of Management, Germ any (dries.faems@

whu .edu).