The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox

• Published date: 01 December 2018
• Author: Timothy J. Hargrave,Sebastian Raisch,Andrew H. Ven
• Date: 01 December 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12397

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

The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox

Sebastian Raisch, Timothy J. Hargrave and

Andrew H. van de Ven

University of Geneva; Central Washington University; University of Minnesota

ABST RACT Paradox theory enables ma nagement research to replace either/or thinking

with more integrat ive both/and approaches. Despite this achievement, greater theoreti-

cal complexity is needed to account for paradoxical t ensions’ intricacies. We use

dialectics theor y to unpack the learning processes through which org anizational

members and collectives build their c apacity to understa nd and cope with complex

tensions over time. Building on these i nsights, we develop a paradox process model that

resembles a learning spira l, in which organiz ations move through stages of convergence

and divergence. During the convergence stages, they lea rn about and refine t heir

current worldviews by constant ly moving between the tension’s poles. During the

divergence stages, they move beyond dyna mic equilibrium to reach a h igher under-

standing of tensions and t heir management. While org anizations caught in equ ilibrium

are prone to stasis and demise, t hose that move beyond equilibr ium can achieve

sustainabilit y.

Keywo rds: ambidexterit y, dialectics, orga nizational learning, paradox, process t heory,

tension

INTRODUCTION

Building on a rich history in phi losophy, paradox theory has fundamentally

changed the way management scholars think about tensions. It has enabled them

to move beyond traditional either/or thinking towards more integrative both/

and approaches (Schad et al., 2016; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Despite this achieve-

ment, we share Schad and Bansal’s (2018) opinion that paradox thinking needs

greater theoretical complexity to account for interwoven tensions’ intricacies. We

acknowledge their systems perspective on paradox (see their Point in t his issue),

Journal of Manageme nt Studies 55:8 December 2018

doi: 10.1111/j oms .12 397

Address for reprints: Sebastian Raisch, G eneva School of Economics and Management, Universit y of

Geneva, 40 Blvd Pont d’Arve, 1211 Geneva, Sw itzerland (sebastian.rais ch@unige.ch).

1508 S. Raisch et al.

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

which captures more of paradoxical tensions’ complexity and therefore provides

a useful direction for future management and organization research.

However, we question whether organizational members – and organizational

researchers for that matter – have the capacity for a holistic understanding of

tensions and their management. Organizational actors have cognitive limitations,

which force them to reduce the complexity they face by selectively processing

information. These actors thus form socially constructed representations of real

tensions (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002), and because their actions are based on imper-

fect representations of reality, these activities have unintended consequences that

trigger further rounds of learning and sensemaking (Orlikowski, 1996). While en-

gaging in these learning processes, organizations gradually move to higher levels

of understanding. It is therefore essential that we focus our research attention on

organizational actors, as well as their learning processes, in order to understand

how organizations manage tensions.

In this Counterpoint, we use dialectics theory (Hegel, 1812, 1817), as well as

more contemporary process studies that this perspective has informed (e.g.,

Hargrave and Van de Ven, 2017; Langley and Sloan, 2012; Seo and Creed, 2002),

to unpack the learning processes through which organizational members and

collectives build their capacity to understand and cope with complex tensions

over time. We develop a process model of paradox that resembles a learning spi-

ral, in which organizations move through stages of convergence and divergence.

During the convergence stages, they learn about and refine their current world-

views by constantly moving between the paradoxical tension’s two poles. During

the divergence stages, they move beyond dynamic equilibrium to reach a higher

understanding of tensions and their management. While organizations caught in

a dynamic equilibrium are prone to stasis and demise, those that move beyond

equilibrium can achieve sustainability.

In the remainder of this article, we will initially provide a theoretical back-

ground to paradox theory and dialectics theory. Thereafter, we present our pro-

cess model of paradox. We zoom in and explain how organizations move through

phases of convergence and divergence to enable a learning spiral, which allows

them to better cope with tensions and to ensure sustainability. Our counterpoint

ends with an integration of the ideas underlying our process model and those that

Schad and Bansal (2018) present in their systems view of paradox. We argue that

the point and counterpoint are not only contradictory, but also complementary:

Our process perspective shows the transformational journey that organizations

take in their quest to move closer to the system perspective’s holistic worldview.

We conclude by providing a joint agenda for future management research on

paradox.

THEOR ETICAL BACKGROU ND

While both paradox and dialectics were central to foundational writings on or-

ganizational tensions in ma nagement (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989), subsequent