Leadership & paradox: Tug-of-war or creative freedom?
Have you ever been told to focus on individual work performance, but also team performance at the same time?
Are you responsible for empowering your team to make decisions, and also responsible for direction and control of results?
Do you struggle with maintaining authority as a leader, but also being close and chummy with subordinates at the same time?
If you answered YES to any of these questions, I invite you to participate in my research project, sponsored by Northwestern University.
This voluntary study entails of a short online survey (2-3 mins) and a 50-60 minute telephone interview with yours truly (me!). In the interview, I will ask you some questions about your experiences as a manager in specific scenarios. As a token of appreciation, I'll send you a $5 Starbucks gift card when we wrap up the interview. Yay, free coffee!
The study is completely confidential and both your info and your organization's info will be anonymized.
Here's more on the topic of paradox:
The explosive pace of organizational change and its resultant web of complexity is rarely disputed. Disruptive market forces, hypercompetitive environments, and constant change have given way to uncertainty, anxiety, and tension in all levels of the organization (Lewis, Andriopoulos & Smith, 2014; Wheatley, 2006). Today’s leader is expected not only to manage an operational or functional part of a business, but also groups of subordinates, a myriad of other stakeholders both internal (top management teams) and external (customers, suppliers), often all at global levels and reaches. Leaders are expected to succeed in areas of prediction, accountability, certainty despite our reality of profoundly complex systems. Survival and growth as an organizational leader now demands less focus on asserting controland more attention to finding order (Northouse 2016, Wheatley, 2006). In this emerging search for order amidst complexity, management scholars have unsurprisingly been confronted with the concept of organizational paradox.
While paradox is a phenomenon that has intrigued psychologists, philosophers, linguists, and social scientists for centuries, only recently has it gained traction in organizational studies, interesting practitioners and researchers alike. Paired with other constructs such as change, decision making, uncertainty and ambiguity, paradox theory is now recognized as a critical lens for many organizational phenomena (Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Lewis, 2000; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith, 2016).
“Paradoxes stare us in the face - taunting out established certainties, while tempting our untapped creativity”
Organizational paradox, defined as a “contradiction between interrelated elements that [both simultaneously exist and] persist over time”, has a deeply counterintuitive nature (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Paradox is often described as an unsolvable tension, with visions of “contradictory spirals” and “vicious cycles” conjuring irrationality and absurdity (Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016, p. 83; Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Also commonly visualized as a yin-yang symbol, the concept of paradox additionally features interdependent opposites “[reflecting] back on and [imposing] on each other” (Putnam et al, 2016, p. 76). The prospect of favoring one opposite pole over the other only intensifies the tension experienced with a true paradox. This rational, Newtonian logic of “either/or” that may as well be hardwired in our brains, our language, and our emotions is challenged by the concept of “both/and” thinking: paradox. Paradox not only forces us to dispose of our rational worldview, but also challenges us to create a new one that doesn’t necessarily “fit” in the “rules” by which we have lived for centuries (Keller & Chen, 2017; Wheatley, 2006).
Developing new generations of leaders who can embrace the “absurdity” and “messiness” of paradoxical management is critical for both organizational survival and career satisfaction of both leaders and followers alike (Lewis & Smith, 2014, p. 135; Northouse, 2006). Accordingly, understanding the specific emotions experienced when managing unsolvable tensions is a matter of both theoretical and practical significance in the areas of leadership development and human capital management during organizational change (Kets de Vries, & Cheak, 2016; Aust, Brandi, & Keegan 2015; Rothman & Melwani, 2017, p. 260).
The overall aim of my study is to contribute to various provocations across the broad range of management scholars. Specifically, the objective of my study is to qualitatively explore the types, combinations of, and intensity of emotions in the experience of leading subordinates in a paradoxical way. I seek to address the emotions experienced by middle managers when developing/exhibiting paradoxical leader behavior. I argue that by adding our understanding of the emotions of managers who have adopted paradoxical leadership behaviors to the ongoing discussion will we understand more fully the opportunities and/or consequences from paradoxical leadership.
Referenced Sources:
Aust, I., Brandl, J., & Keegan, A. (2015). State-of-the-art and future directions for HRM from a paradox perspective: Introduction to the Special Issue. Zeitschrift Fur Personalforschung, 29(3-4), 194-213.
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 management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Keller, J., & Chen, E. (2017). A road map of the paradoxical mind: Expanding cognitive theories on organizational paradox. In W. Smith, M. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (pp. 66-86). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kets de Vries, M., & Cheak, A. (2016). Psychodynamic approach. In P.G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.) (pp. 295-323). Sage publications.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58-77.
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,50(2), 127-149.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice(7th ed.). Sage publications.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A Constitutive Approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65-171.
Rothman, N. B., & Melwani, S. (2017). Feleling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy Of Management Review, 42(2), 259-282.
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy Of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3rd ed.). Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
