From a Label to a Metatheory of Paradox: If We Change the Way We Look at Things, the Things We Look at Change

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, mounting insights into paradox have enabled a paradigm shift in organizational theory from linear, static, and rational toward more holistic, dynamic, and dualistic thinking. To gain insight into the nature and development of this scholarship, we curated articles from Academy of Management journals. We identified four approaches to paradox—as a label, a lens, a theory, and a metatheory. Pioneering and prototypical articles have illustrated how each approach expands our understanding of paradox, elucidating unresolved issues in and between established literatures. The collection displays both the progression of abstraction and complexity in paradox scholarship over time, and the recursive process accentuating the value of each approach and their interplay, thus offering three contributions. First, our delineation of these approaches demonstrates the development of paradox scholarship, helping scholars situate their own work in this expanding canon, while inviting new scholars to find their entry point to engage with paradox. Second, by tracking the journey from label to metatheory, we offer a model that may inform similar paths for other literatures. Third, the collection suggests that insights into paradox are fostering a paradigm shift from linear and binary toward dynamic and holistic ontologies in the organizational sciences.

In today’s complex and dynamic world, paradoxes—persistent interdependent contradictions —have become increasingly relevant for understanding and leading organizations (Schad, Lewis, & Smith, 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011).1 Spanning both macro and micro issues, paradox scholarship explores how organizations and their members cope with competing demands, interests, perspectives, and identities. Rather than prioritizing or stressing one demand at the expense of others, paradox scholarship invites both–and strategies, shifting from a linear, static, and rational approach to a more holistic, dynamic, and complex outlook. Adopting an alternative outlook changes how we understand and analyze organizational phenomena. For example, early perspectives depicted exploration and exploitation as two ends of a continuum (Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006), whereas paradox theory conceptualizes these competing demands as interdependent and mutually enabling, thus spurring integrative strategies that simultaneously address both (Smith & Tushman, 2015). In this Academy of Management Collections article, we curate Academy of Management publications from more than three decades to illustrate how paradox research has developed over time, impacting understandings—and even inviting a paradigm shift—in the organizational sciences. Table 1 shows all 20 articles of this collection.