Putnam 2016

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/301535174
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive

Approach
Article in The Academy of Management Annals · April 2016

DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
CITATIONS READS
304 3,611
3 authors:
L. Putnam Gail Fairhurst

University of California, Santa Barbara University of Cincinnati
175 PUBLICATIONS 10,809 CITATIONS 88 PUBLICATIONS 6,941 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Scott Banghart
University of California, Santa Barbara
11 PUBLICATIONS 1,182 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by L. Putnam on 16 March 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Academy of Management Annals
ISSN: 1941-6520 (Print) 1941-6067 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rama20
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in

Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Linda L. Putnam, Gail T. Fairhurst & Scott Banghart
To cite this article: Linda L. Putnam, Gail T. Fairhurst & Scott Banghart (2016): Contradictions,
Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach, The Academy of
Management Annals, DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
Published online: 19 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rama20
Download by: [University of California Santa Barbara] Date: 19 April 2016, At: 15:50
The Academy of Management Annals, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in

Organizations: A Constitutive Approach†
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Barbara] at 15:50 19 April 2016
LINDA L. PUTNAM*
Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara
GAIL T. FAIRHURST
Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati
SCOTT BANGHART
Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara
This article presents a constitutive approach to the study of organizational con-

tradictions, dialectics, paradoxes, and tensions. In particular, it highlights five
constitutive dimensions (i.e., discourse, developmental actions, socio-historical
conditions, presence in multiples, and praxis) that appear across the literature
in five metatheoretical traditions—process-based systems, structuration, criti-
cal, postmodern, and relational dialectics. In exploring these dimensions, it
defines and distinguishes among key constructs, links research to process out-
comes, and sets forth a typology of alternative ways of responding to
†
In Academy of Management Annals, 10 (1), 2016, edited by Sim B. Sitkin and Laurie R.
Weingart.
∗
Corresponding author. Email: lputnam@comm.ucsb.edu
# 2016 Academy of Management
1
2 † The Academy of Management Annals
organizational tensions. It concludes by challenging researchers to sharpen

their focus on time in process studies, privilege emotion in relation to ration-
ality, and explore the dialectic between order and disorder.
Introduction
Over two decades have passed since Handy (1994) noted that the phrase, “It’s a
paradox,” had become a management cliché for describing opposing forces in
complex organizational environments. For Handy, the phrase was overused
and underspecified; but it typified a fact of life, that is, contradiction and
paradox are the “new normal” in this volatile, rapidly changing landscape of
organizations (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004). In particular, the constant pres-
ence of globalization, new technologies, niche markets, flexible yet decentra-
lized structures, and changing economic conditions means that
contradictions are an everyday occurrence in the workplace (Mumby, 2014).
In an effort to remain competitive amid these changes, modern organizations
rely on flexibility to shift work processes, incorporate new technologies, and
outsource labor markets. These shifts create contradictions between old and
new processes and as well as blurring the boundaries among work, home,
and community (Florida, 2003).
As a result, the research on paradox and its related terms, tensions, contra-
dictions, and dialectics, has become so dominant in the organizational land-
scape that it is difficult to use any other words than “paradigmatic” and
“pervasive” to describe the work (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004; Engeström &
Sannino, 2011; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). It not only exists
in management studies but also in interdisciplinary social sciences writ large,
including communication, sociology, psychology, and education (e.g., Fair-
hurst & Putnam, 2014; Good & Michel, 2013; Heydebrand, 1977; Kurian,
Munshi, & Bartlett, 2014; Long, Hall, Bermbach, Jordan, & Patterson, 2008;
Martin, O’Brien, Heyworth, & Meyer, 2008; McGovern, 2014; McGuire,
1992; Schneider, 1971; Yeung, 2004). Interdisciplinary work has also
spawned multiple theories and perspectives for examining organizational con-
tradictions and paradoxes. If placed in conversation with each other, these
different orientations can inform, challenge, and enrich this literature.
To aid in comparing these perspectives, this article focuses on research that
examines contradictions and paradoxes in the processes of organizing—which
forms the foundation of what we call a constitutive approach. By crossing
widely diverse metatheoretical traditions, our goal is to show how a constitutive
view sets forth alternative ways to study organizational paradoxes and contradic-
tions, ones heretofore obscured. Why are alternative approaches needed? Even
though “process” is a celebrated attribute of paradox research (Farjoun, 2010,
in press), it has not always had center stage in paradox studies. This review high-
lights how theoretical platforms have emerged to study process in alternative
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations † 3
ways, ones that incorporate but move beyond dynamic equilibrium models
(Lewis, 2000). These approaches raise new and different questions about the
inner workings of paradoxical phenomena and are thus a key way to infuse
the study of paradox with added complexity and explanatory power.
To this end, this article shifts the locus of paradox and contradiction to dis-
courses, social interaction processes, practices, and ongoing organizational
activities rather than actors’ cognitions or large-scale systems. Thus, we
adopt a bottom-up view of organizing, one that focuses on how tensions, con-
tradictions, and dialectics develop as part of actions and interactions. In doing
so, we seek to make three contributions to the exiting literature. First, we

sharpen the definitions of and explore the interrelationships among constructs
in this work. A constitutive view casts the constructs of tension, contradiction,
dialectics, and paradoxes in a different relationship than previous work has
done. For example, this approach moves beyond traditional Hegelian
notions of dialectics (Hegel, 1969) to draw on Bakhtin’s (1981) work on dialo-
gue, as well as postmodern literatures on the dialectic of power and resistance.
Second, our review compares and contrasts the work on contradictions and
paradoxes that crosses multiple metatheoretical traditions. To aid in building a
broad framework or metaperspective, we believe that paradox studies need to
encompass research from widely different paradigms; thus, it should highlight
the issues that are similar and different across perspectives; the ways that key
dimensions become salient in particular work; and how scholars might generate
knowledge about organizational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes across
theoretical arenas. Moreover, our sample of literature incorporates articles and
chapters published in organizational studies writ large, specifically, ones that
include an array of interdisciplinary publications. Third, based on these
diverse traditions, we develop a typology of alternative ways to respond to and
embrace organizational tensions, ones that expand on traditional approaches.
In short, our goals are to develop stronger, more robust theories of paradox,
to set forth a review that recognizes multiple options for research, and to offer
insights for organizational practice. We do so by articulating a process-
oriented, constitutive approach to the study of paradoxes, contradictions,
and dialectics. Toward this end, we begin by outlining definitions and
making distinctions among key constructs. Drawn from the existing literature,
these definitions incorporate a process-based stance on interrelationships
among constructs. We then set forth key dimensions of a constitutive approach
and apply them to the existing literature on paradoxes and contradictions.
Next, we present our methods for sampling and reviewing the literature
drawn from five metatheoretical traditions: (1) process-oriented systems, (2)
structuration, (3) critical, (4) postmodern, and (5) relational dialectics theories.
We then review the publications within each tradition, including historical
foundations, dimensions of the constitutive approach employed in the work,
general themes and research findings, and process outcomes. The overall
question that guides this review is: What can we learn about organizational
paradoxes and contradictions through examining research that embraces a
process-driven, constitutive approach?
At the end of the article, we draw some conclusions regarding what we have
learned from using a constitutive lens to understand organizational contradic-
tions and paradoxes, and we discuss methodological issues for conducting
research on organizational paradoxes. We also advocate developing a metaper-
spective or framework in which multiple traditions in paradox work can
coexist and engage in dialogue with each other. Finally, we set forth three
areas for future research on paradox studies, namely, sharpening the focus
on time, rethinking notions of rationality, and exploring the dialectic
between order-disorder. The overall aim of this review is to deduce patterns
regarding how contradictions and paradoxes develop in organizational pro-
cesses; how they evolve and play out in organizational activities; and how
actors respond to and manage them.
Definitions of Key Constructs

The vast literature that focuses on organizational contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes offers a number of definitions of these constructs (see Table 1). Even
though studies often confound these terms and use them interchangeably (see
discussions by Evans & Doz, 1992; Janssens & Steyaert, 1999; Quinn &
Cameron, 1988), our literature review reveals some convergence for how
researchers are defining these key constructs. Not surprisingly, though, scho-
lars differ in their perspectives, the ways they treat the constructs, and distinc-
tions/relationships among them. This review centers on five key constructs:
tensions, dualisms/dualities, contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. We con-
clude this section by explicating a constitutive view of the relationship among
these concepts.
Tension
As organizational actors encounter incompatibilities and dilemmas, they
experience tensions, defined as stress, anxiety, discomfort, or tightness in
making choices and moving forward in organizational situations (Fairhurst
& Putnam, 2014). Tensions are feeling states, ones that often result from frus-
tration, blockage, uncertainty, and even paralysis that individuals face in
dealing with contradictions and paradoxes (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Berg, 1987;
Smith & Lewis, 2011; Vince & Broussine, 1996). Organizational actors see,
feel, cognitively process, and even communicate about tensions as they experi-
ence them. Thus, tensions underlie the other constructs in this arena.
Tension, however, is often the broadest, most ambiguous of the concepts,
and the one that scholars frequently use to signify all paradoxical dynamics.
Table 1 Definitions of Constructs

Construct Our Definition Definitions in the Literature
Tension Stress, anxiety, discomfort, or tightness in making choices, . Stress, tightness, push-pull dilemmas that grow out of discontinuities as a
responding to, and moving forward in organizational situations result of competing directions and struggles between opposites (Fairhurst
& Putnam, 2014)
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

. Discomfort felt in the clash of ideas, principles, and actions in response to
antagonisms of opposites (Fairhurst, Cooren, & Cahill, 2002)
. Dilemmas and conflicted sites of human activity viewed as a normal
conditions of organizational life rather than as ruptures or problems
(Trethewey & Ashcraft, 2004)
. Opposing demands or sources of contradictions and paradoxes that arise
from complex and ambiguous systems (Lewis, 2000; Lewis,
Andriopoulos, & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011)
Dualism The existence of opposite poles, dichotomies, binary . Polarization of theoretical positions that revolve around the problematic
relationships that are able to create tensions, but can nature of the relationship between ‘action’ and ‘structure’ (Knights, 1997)
be separated . Dualism usually shows a clear-cut and decisive contrast, a well-defined
boundary, and no overlap. This often becomes synonymous with
opposition and potential conflict. To be effective, a dualism must be
comprehensive; it can have no middle or external ground and often rests
on mutually exclusive and exhaustive classes (Farjoun, 2010)
Duality Interdependence of opposites in a both/and relationship that is not . Two seemingly opposite concepts that are interdependent rather than
mutually exclusive or antagonistic separate or mutually exclusive (Farjoun, 2010).
. Dualistic elements that may be interdependent and conceptually distinct,
rather than opposed (Sutherland & Smith, 2011)
. Exploring the links between apparently opposite dimensions through
maintaining conceptual distinctions without being committed to rigid
antagonism or separation (Jackson, 1999; Smith & Graetz, 2006a)
. Opposites that exist within a unified whole; internal boundary creates
distinction and highlights opposition; external boundary encourages
synergies by constructing the unified whole (Smith & Lewis, 2011)
5 †
(Continued)
6 †
Table 1 (Continued)
Contradiction Bipolar opposites that are mutually exclusive and interdependent such that . Diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive choices (Putnam, 1986)
the opposites define and potentially negate each other . Opposite sides of the same coin; the more actors move toward one pole,
the more they feel pulled toward the opposite (Smith & Lewis, 2011)
. Simultaneous presence of presumed opposites, incompatibilities, or
irrationalities that characterize the ambiguous, ever-changing, and
complex features of organizational life (Jones, 2004)
. Oppositions that lie partly in resource limitations and partly in multiple
and equally legitimate values grounded in different institutional spheres
(Abdallah, Denis, & Langley, 2011)
. Sources of conflict that fuel change, set limits on the possibilities for
reconstruction, and may enhance variations in social order (Benson,
1977; Heydebrand, 1977; Zeitz, 1980)
. A disjuncture of opposing forces in the central property of a system that
creates antagonism of opposites (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Howard & Geist,
1995; Meyers & Garrett, 1993)
. Primary contradictions, such as capitalism, form generative principles for
multiple secondary contradictions (Giddens, 1984)
. An inherent opposition that stems from capitalist economy, power
relationships, and structural arrangements that forms ruptures and
radical breaks from the existing orders (Benson, 1973; Willmott, 1990)
. How concepts come into opposition to create meanings in ways that
juxtapose power and hierarchical differences (Jones, 2004; Mumby &
Stohl, 1991)
(Continued)
Table 1 (Continued)
Dialectics Interdependent opposites aligned with forces that push-pull on each other . Method of epistemic inquiry in which scholars search for the
like a rubber band and exist in an ongoing dynamic interplay as the poles fundamental principles that account for the emergence and dissolution of
implicate each other. Focuses on the unity of opposites and the forces or social orders through contradictory forms (Benson, 1977; Willmott, 1990)

processes that connect them . Interplay of thesis and antithesis in the interdependence of opposites that
leads to change through creating a synthesis (Benson, 1977; Bledow,
Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr, 2009; Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Israel,
1979; Seo & Creed, 2002)
. An ongoing process of resolving tensions through integration in which A
and B are contradictory (thesis and antithesis) and merged into a
synthesis, which becomes a new thesis that spurs an antithesis (Smith &
Lewis, 2011)
. Recurrent and discontinuous sequences of confrontation and synthesis
between contradictory values or events (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995)
. Opposition of dynamic forces that emerge through conflict, crisis, and
contradictions in control structures, economic resources, and historical
work processes (Heydebrand, 1977; Zeitz, 1980)
. Dialectic of control is a reciprocal power relationship played out among
agents, lived out through responses to contradictions, and sedimented in
various institutional forms (Giddens, 1979; Howard & Geist, 1995)
. The interplay of material and symbolic aspects manifested through class
differences and the radical separation of workers from the processes and
products of their labor (Cheney & Cloud, 2006; Cloud, 2005; Willmott,
1990)
. The articulation of and dynamic interplay between opposites (Fang, 2005)
. The interplay of control and resistance that simultaneously enables and
constrains efforts to transform organizations (Mumby, 2014; Zoller,
2014)
. Embracing the simultaneity of presumed binaries; the process of holding
opposites together (Cooper, 1989)
7 †
(Continued)
8 †
Table 1 (Continued)
Paradox Contradictions that persist over time, impose and reflect back on each . The effects of imperatives or injunctions to comply with simultaneously
other, and develop into seemingly irrational or absurd situations because mutually exclusive actions (Smith & Berg, 1987; Stohl & Cheney, 2001;
their continuity creates situations in which options appear mutually Wendt, 1998)
exclusive, making choices among them difficult . Oppositional tendencies brought into recognition through reflection or
interaction (Ford & Backoff, 1988; Smith & Tushman, 2005)
. Contradictory and interrelated elements that persist over time and exist
simultaneously and synergistically and expose seemingly irrational and
absurd relationships, processes and practices (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis,
2011)
. Perceptual or cognitively constructed polarities that mask the
simultaneity of conflicting truths (Smith & Lewis, 2011)
. Contradictions embedded in multiple interrelated oppositions; the
simultaneous presence of contradictory and mutually exclusive elements
(Fairhurst et al., 2002)
To illustrate, the concept of tension permeates the work-life literature because a

presumption exists that work stands in direct opposition to family or life. Ten-
sions arise from the stress involved in trading off the amount of time, energy,
and effort that goes into one domain as opposed to the other. Wieland (2011)
aptly demonstrates the presence of these tensions in her study of Swedish
employees who experience normative pressures to meet deadlines and
deliver excellent work while simultaneously adhering to the cultural value of
well-being, that is, living a healthy, well-rounded life.
Tensions also arise as organizational members encounter dilemmas. As a
point of distinction, dilemmas refer to either-or choices in which one alterna-

tive must be selected among mutually attractive (or unattractive) options
(Cameron & Quinn, 1988). As such, the alternatives are not necessarily incom-
patible. While dilemmas can create anxiety in having to make a choice, they are
typically one-shot encounters in which actors weigh pros and cons and make
trade-offs. In contrast, contradictions and paradoxes encompass oppositional
or bi-polar relationships. An example of a dilemma in the work-life literature
involves telecommuting, especially whether to spend more time coordinating
and checking in with the office or focusing on getting the task done
(Lautsch, Kossek, & Eaton, 2009). The two choices are not necessarily mutually
exclusive and could be done in tandem. One potential area of confusion for
those studying organizational tension is how much the aforementioned
stress, anxiety, discomfort, or tightness associated with tensions must be verba-
lized. In many cases, tensions are read, but the emotions behind them are either
unclear or ignored.
Dualism/Duality
Dualism refers to opposite poles, dichotomies, binary relationships, or bipolar
opposites (Bisel, 2009; Knights, 1997; Nasim & Sushil, 2011). Organizational
theory is replete with binary relationships, such as micro-macro, action-struc-
ture, and symbolic-material. Dualisms lie at the heart of contradictions and
paradoxes in that they set up bipolar relationships that often permeate dualities
in the field (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999), but these relationships are not necess-
arily incompatible or mutually exclusive. While scholars differ in their defi-
nitions (see Table 1), dualisms have clear-cut boundaries between poles and
can be addressed through treating them as compatible and interdependent,
rather than antagonistic and separate. As an example, organizational actors
often combine short and long-term needs in situations in which they are not
treated as mutually exclusive or opposite of each other. In a similar way, the
concepts of exploration and exploitation in the organizational change literature
are not necessarily antithetical or mutually exclusive (see Farjoun, 2010).1
In contrast, duality refers to the interdependence of opposites that form a
both-and relationship, evident in such concepts as structuration or
ambidexterity (Bisel, 2009; Nasim & Sushil, 2011; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008).
Based on changes in classic dualisms (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999), scholars are
now addressing organizational complexity through embracing both poles sim-
ultaneously. Importantly, duality is a readily available option for theory devel-
opment since the selected oppositional pairs are not necessarily viewed in
antithetical or antagonistic ways.
Contradiction
In contrast, contradiction refers to polar opposites that are interdependent,

define each other, and can potentially negate one another (Putnam, 1986). It
draws from the notion of binaries, but casts polar opposites as mutually exclu-
sive and interdependent rather than discrete. Contradiction is often treated as
opposite sides of the same coin, such that the more actors move toward one
pole, the more they feel pulled toward the other (Smith & Lewis, 2011). As
an example, supervisors who treat employees’ requests for family concerns
as “taking away time from the office,” reinforce the belief that work and
family are incongruent, and thus negate each other. This negation stems
from categorically-opposite relationships, for example, cultural-societal expec-
tations, language systems that form binaries (e.g., open vs. closed, up vs. down),
or structural arrangements linked to power and hierarchies (e.g., rich vs. poor,
capital vs. labor; Bateson, 1979; Cooper, 1989; Israel, 1979). Thus, scholars gen-
erally agree that contradictions refer to incompatible or opposite poles that are
bound together and yet have the potential to negate the other (Howard & Geist,
1995). In this way, contradictions incorporate dualisms, but they treat oppo-
sites as interdependent and mutually defining rather than discrete.
Yet, scholars differ as to the source of these contradictions. For some, con-
tradictions stem from historically-rooted tensions that become intertwined
with organizational actions (Engeström & Sannino, 2011; Kerosuo, 2011) or
from socioeconomic roots (i.e., capitalism; Cheney & Cloud, 2006; Cloud,
2005); resource limitations and competing institutional values (Abdallah
et al., 2011); or ever-changing complexities in organizational life (Jones,
2004). Contradictions are also constructed in meaning systems that instantiate
power and control (Mumby & Stohl, 1991), in inherent conflicts of interest
(Benson, 1977, 1983), and in the ongoing struggle of unity and division in
social relationships (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Irrespective of the source,
contradictions form the roots of dialectics and paradox.
Dialectics
Drawing on contradiction, the term dialectics refers to the ongoing, dynamic
interplay of opposite poles as they implicate each other (Carlo, Lyytinen, &
Boland, 2012) as well as to the unity of opposites (Bledow et al., 2009). In
dialectics, interdependent and mutually exclusive poles are continually con-

nected in a push-pull on each other, like a rubber band. This interplay is
dynamic in that tensions “emerge and evolve, dissolve or reproduce themselves
in the context of ongoing social interaction within and among social systems”
(Langley & Sloan, 2011, p. 262). In the work-life literature, implementing
workplace flexibility arrangements through developing rigid policies enacts a
dialectical relationship in which flexibility and rigidity exist in a dynamic inter-
play. For example, companies that support flexible work programs and then
create bureaucratic hassles, extensive paperwork, and rigid guidelines create
binds for their employees in structuring job performance. This practice is

evident in implementing maternity leaves as the push-pull between flexible
versus fixed arrangements creates dialectical tensions that result in added
work pressures and stress (Buzzanell & Liu, 2005, 2007).
In some schools of thought, however, the dynamic interplay of opposites
becomes a source of energy, creativity, and dialogue (Bakhtin, 1981). Dialectics
as a construct differs from contradiction by emphasizing the constant push-pull
between contradictory elements. It differs from dualisms or binaries by focus-
ing on unity and the ways that opposites mutually define each other rather than
develop separately.
Although imbued with a variety of meanings (Schneider, 1971), dialectics in
organizational studies is often aligned with Hegel’s (1969) notions of thesis,
antithesis, and synthesis as the unity of opposites (Benson, 1977; Bledow
et al., 2009; Seo & Creed, 2002) or with dialectics of control (Giddens, 1979).
As a concept, dialectics also refers to the ongoing struggles that emerge in con-
flict situations (Heydebrand, 1977; Zeitz, 1980); to specific drivers of organiz-
ational change (Ford & Backoff, 1988; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995); and to the
interplay of power and resistance (Mumby, 2005; Zoller, 2014). In general, the
organizational literature on dialectics is vast and adopts diverse approaches to
this construct (see Langley & Sloan, 2011). For the most part, this work has not
been directly integrated with organizational paradox theory, even though dia-
lectics surfaces as a way of incorporating process dynamics into the study of
paradox.
Paradox
Paradox refers to the contradictory features in organizations that exist simul-
taneously and synergistically over time, and become seemingly irrational or
absurd (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Paradoxes
differ from contradictions in that they create situations of almost impossible
choice, hence the seeming irrationality or absurdity of the situation (see
Table 1). They are often linked to surprising or ironic outcomes and inconsis-
tencies, for example, situations that lead to inefficient efficiencies, equity
programs that legitimate discrimination, and democratic systems that restrict

participation (Johansson & Stohl, 2012; Stohl & Cheney, 2001).
Our definition adds an additional feature to the concept of paradox; that is,
interdependent and mutually exclusive opposites reflect back on and impose
on each other. This typically occurs through the ways that contradictions
and dialectics form the building blocks of paradox as it persists over time
and makes choice difficult. For example, in the work-life literature, the
finding that “the more autonomy that employees have, the harder they
work, the more hours they devote, and the more that organizations control
their lives” is paradoxical (Putnam, Myers, & Gailliard, 2014, p. 427). Auton-
omy or freedom in scheduling work and task activities exist in opposition to
control in which direct supervision, normative behaviors, and professional
socialization regulate workers’ lives (Evans, Kunda, & Barley, 2004). In this
example, both autonomy and control reflect back on and constrain each
other through expectations for effective performance or meeting the standards
of an “ideal worker” (Wieland, 2010).
This tension then leads to ironic and seemingly absurd outcomes; that is,
autonomy often increases rather than decreases workplace control. Thus,
paradox incorporates features of another related term, irony. As a literary
trope, irony is typically defined as incongruity between what is expected and
what occurs or saying one thing and meaning the opposite (Oswick,
Putnam, & Keenoy, 2004). Irony then often forms through oppositional ten-
sions that cross texts, subtexts, and context. It is also a way of responding to
and coping with contradictions. Irony thus aligns with the notion of surprise
or absurdity that accompanies paradox; however, organizational occurrences
can be paradoxical without necessarily being ironical.
Some scholars draw from family systems theory to examine how organiz-
ational paradoxes emerge from responding to mutually exclusive commands
or opposite injunctions; thus to comply with one request, is to necessarily
negate its opposite (Kets de Vries, 1980; Putnam, 1986; Stohl & Cheney,
2001). For example, a supervisor who directs her subordinates to be innovative
and make their own decisions and then simultaneously reprimands them for
not doing what she wants gives mutually exclusive commands. Subordinates
often oscillate between choices that are both right and wrong and thus seem
impossible to make. Thus, in a paradoxical situation, contradictory poles
reflect on each other in an ongoing relationship that, in turn, shapes the
paradox itself and the responses to it.
To summarize, our definitions of relevant constructs (see Table 1) align
with a constitutive view of organizational paradox. This view grounds tensions
in routine patterns of organizing in which contradictions emerge, evolve, and
become interwoven in ongoing struggles (dialectics). At the individual level,
organizational members experience these tensions in workplace routines and
must respond to them in their actions and interactions. These responses
occur in the context of past practices that collectively develop into systemic
processes. For example, Tracy (2004) illustrated how correction officers at a
prison experienced contradictions between organizational rules and efforts to
respect and be empathic with inmates. Everyday interactions were grounded
in a balancing act of contradictions that arose from adhering to the rules, fol-
lowing organizational norms, and finding ways to be human. Thus, in a con-
stitutive view, paradoxes emanate from social actions and interactions as
organizational members respond to and process contradictions in ways that
create systematic patterns. These patterns become embedded in routines and
structures, are brought from the past into the future, and evolve as organizing
continues across time and space. The interrelationships among these con-
structs align with five dimensions of a constitutive approach in ways that
lead to six types of process outcomes.
Key Dimensions of a Constitutive Approach

In this article, we foreground the social aspects of organizational life and rele-
gate cognitive features to the background in our analysis. Specifically, we view
language, discourse, and social interactions as forming rather than reflecting
reality (Rorty, 1967). This orientation, however, places us at odds with much
of the paradox literature, which tends to foreground cognition and background
the social (e.g., Good & Michel, 2013; Lewis, 2000; Smith & Tushman, 2005;
Suedfeld, Tetlock, & Streufert, 1992; Westenholz, 1993). For the most part, a
cognitive approach treats language as an artifact or an outgrowth of organiz-
ational events, one that mirrors or reflects what is happening. In contrast,
we conceive of discourse, not as a window to feelings and cognitions, but as
a key to how paradox forms and operates. As such we asked, what is language
doing in paradoxical situations (Potter & Wetherell, 1987)? In effect, we reverse
the figure-ground arrangement between the cognitive and the social and focus
on discourses, social interaction processes, and ongoing organizational prac-
tices rather than on actors’ perceptions or on large-scale systems. This reversal
in figure-ground led to what we call a “constitutive approach” to the study of
organizational paradox.
A constitutive approach grows out of theoretical traditions that emphasize
social processes in robust ways (e.g., social constructionism, postmodernism,
structuration, and relational dialectics). We have selected this approach
because it addresses what we see as a gap in the paradox literature, that is,
investigating the origins of paradoxes, their formation, their development,
and the ways that they become intermingled with organizational practices.
Language and social interactions are not only keys to the ways that paradox
develops, but discourse sets the conditions for how actors appropriate contra-
dictions in organizational processes. Specifically, language use aids in decipher-
ing how contradictions function as repertoires that guide actors’ responses to
organizational paradoxes. Thus, we adopt a constitutive approach as our onto-

logical stance for understanding paradox.
In addition to this stance, key dimensions of a constitutive approach also
function as an organizing framework for this review. Specifically, five key
dimensions of a constitutive view serve as standards or value judgments for
grounding paradoxes in actions and interactions. The five key process-based
dimensions, which we bring together for a first time in this essay, are: (1) dis-
course, (2) developmental actions, (3) socio-historical conditions, (4) the pres-
ence of multiples, and (5) praxis (see Table 2). We derive each of the five from
our ontological approach to paradox, which is rooted in an inherently social

view of the world. These dimensions cross different metatheoretical traditions,
apply to the literature in diverse ways, and encompass specific assumptions or
value claims for this work. Thus, in addition to forming our ontological stance,
we apply these five dimensions as a framework to conduct a review of the
organizational literature. Even though they serve as a foil for this review,
they do not apply equally to all studies or each theoretical tradition. Thus,
we highlight how each body of literature incorporates one or more of these
dimensions.
As noted above, a constitutive view takes discourse and meaning as central
components in organizing. The first dimension, discourse, refers to constella-
tions of language, logics, and texts rooted in day-to-day actions and inter-
actions (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2014). It focuses on how organizational
members enact tensions and respond to contradictions in and through
written and visual texts; co-developed meanings and interpretations for
actions; and performances of rituals, narratives, and normative practices.2
Embracing discourse and social interaction does not mean that organizations
are devoid of material features (i.e., objects, economic factors); rather, these
features are mediated in discourse and through social processes.
Developmental actions, the second dimension, focuses on ways in which
organizational tensions and contradictions emerge, evolve, sustain, or trans-
form over a more or less immediate time period; to translate, it is the live
action of the present moment. As such, it tracks how scholars cast tensions
in ongoing organizational processes and events and in ways that might
amplify and build on each other. Process theory, then, is an implicit part of
a constitutive view (Hernes, 2014; Langley & Tsoukas, 2010; Tsoukas &
Chia, 2002), but the two approaches are not identical since language and
social interactions are not always present in process studies of organizations.
Closely related to the developmental process is the third dimension, the
notion of socio-historical conditions or historic eras that lay the foundation
for contradictions. For Benson (1977, 1983) and other early organizational
scholars, contradictions were rooted in social structures that were historically
and politically negotiated in societal contexts. Thus, a constitutive view advo-
cates returning to the concrete historical periods and sources of action (i.e.,
Table 2 Key Dimensions of A Constitutive Approach to Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes

Feature Definition Characteristics
Discourse Tensions are made salient through language use in social . Constellations of language logics and texts in actions/
interactions, in texts linked to clashes among discourses, or interactions
oppositional aspects of texts. . Attention to competing discourses in situ and in
larger texts that create, sustain, and change
organizational reality
. Symbolic texts (e.g., narratives) reveal how tensions
are framed and talked about
Developmental Tensions emerge, evolve, and transform across time and space in . Dynamic interplay of organizational processes
Actions dynamic organizational processes. . Rooted in actions and interactions that evolve over
time
. Amplifying and building on each other over time
. Indeterminate and recursive
Socio-historical Tensions are rooted in particular historical periods or at the . Situated in particular historical periods, stages,
Conditions interfaces of past, present, and future. phases, fluctuations
. Linked to prior discourses and meaning structures
Continued
15 †
16 †
Table 2 (Continued)
Feature Definition Characteristics
Presence of A variety of tensions may be operative simultaneously, located at . Multiple tensions develop and multiple meanings,
Multiples multiple levels (i.e., interpersonal/dyadic, group/team, intergroup, interpretations, and voices enter into their
organizational, interorganizational, societal/environmental) and development and evolution
across multiple sources (i.e., circumstances, events, actors, etc.). . Tracking of tensions across multiple levels and
The ways actors interpret, engage, and act on them can take sources
multiple forms. . Focus on how managing tension at one level or in
one source may spark new tensions at another
. Actions and interactions that link the local to global
. Tensions are interrelated and/or interwoven—can
form families, hierarchies, and knots
Praxis In practice, actors develop different levels of understanding about . Moving forward
tensions and make choices about engaging and responding to them . Reflexivity and awareness
as well as how to move forward amid complex circumstances. W Discursive consciousness
W Recognition of actions/interactions that generate
tensions
. Understanding situational triggers
Table 3 Process Outcomes

Process Outcomes Definition Key References
Vicious & Virtuous Iterative spirals or self-reinforcing sequences of events that Maruyama (1963); Masuch (1985); Rice and Cooper

Cycles grow out of the ways that actors process contradictions and (2010); Smith and Lewis (2011); Weick (1979)
develop into positive (virtuous) or negative (vicious) cycles.
Double Binds & Perpetual oscillation between non-existent alternatives or a Bateson (1972); Ford and Backoff (1988); Kets de Vries
Paralysis feeling of being “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” (1978); Wagner (1978); Watzlawick, Beavin, and
in a given situation that leads actors to feel paralyzed or Jackson (1967); Wendt (1998)
trapped with no way out.
Unintended & Outcomes that actors did not intend or prefer; ones that they Das and Teng (2000); Fairhurst et al. (2002); Jian
Unanticipated would change if they could start over and act differently; ones (2007b); McKinley and Scherer (2000)
Consequences that are surprising, unexpected, or form the opposite of what
was originally desired.
Enabling & Constraining How outcomes facilitate or impede future actions, alternatives Haslett (2012); Jian (2007a); McPhee, Poole, and
Actions available, and individual choices; constraining often refers to Iverson (2014)
limiting agency, power, and praxis; the ways that structures
enable and constrain systems in structuration.
Opening Up & Closing The degree to which contradictions and tensions open up or Deetz (1992); Mumby (2013)
Off Participation close off opportunities for dialogue related to struggles in
meanings and actions; opening up refers to uncovering
hidden distortions, challenging power relations, and/or
avoiding premature closure that privileges some actors at the
expense of others.
Transforming & Examines how ideologies, structures, systems, practices, and McPhee et al. (2014); Van de Ven and Poole (1995)
†
Reproducing power relationships become altered in responding to
17
Organizations contradictions and tensions; transforming refers to changes;
reproducing refers to preserving the status quo.
events, episodes, eras, etc.) that situate contradictions in societal and organiz-
ation contexts.
The fourth dimension, the presence of multiples, encompasses three sub-fea-
tures of a constitutive view of paradoxes: multiple levels, multiple tensions, and
multiple voices. Studies that embrace a constitutive view typically emphasize
multiplicity by incorporating one or more of these three sub-features. Multiple
levels refer to the organizational arenas in which contradictions and paradoxes
are enacted (e.g., dyadic, team, intergroup, organizational, institutional, and
societal). In a constitutive view, tensions and contradictions become embedded
in multiple structures, systems, and contexts, and actors often connect and
interweave them across levels. Specifically, actions and interactions in daily
routines (i.e., local levels) draw on contradictions from organizational and
institutional arenas (i.e. global levels) and vice versa.
In addition, tensions and contradictions often occur in multiples, rather
than as one bi-polar opposite. For Benson (1977), ongoing processes that are
both internal and external to an organization produce a complex array of mul-
tiple, interrelated tensions. Arrays of tensions and sub-tensions can develop
simultaneously and amplify each other. The notion that tensions become
bundled has reached the level of conventional wisdom in organizational
studies; however, researchers in a particular study typically segment and
single out tensions (Huxham & Beech, 2003; Sheep, Fairhurst, & Khazanchi,
in press). A constitutive perspective challenges this practice.
In a similar way, contradictions often stem from multiple voices, clashes
between different discourses, and diverse interests that typify the fast pace of
organizational life (Fleming & Spicer, 2008; Ruud, 2000). Thus, the presence
of multiples refers to a variety of competing discourses and interpretations
that give rise to contradictory actions, ones that emanate from opposite
ideas, interests, and social structures that characterize complex organizations
(Langley & Sloan, 2011).
A fifth and final dimension of a constitutive approach is praxis, which draws
from Hegelian dialectical theory (Benson, 1977) and focuses on an actor’s
awareness or consciousness of contradictions and paradoxes. This conscious-
ness emanates in felt experiences, self-monitoring of behavioral patterns, rec-
ognition of clashes in actions, and understanding the nature of tensions in an
organizational field (Shotter & Tsoukas, 2014). It entails being reflexive about
actions and interactions; analyzing and penetrating tension-producing struc-
tures and experiences; and making choices to call into question, respond,
and move forward amid contradictions and tensions.3
In short, these five dimensions form the ontological foundation of a consti-
tutive approach as well as the framework for examining the process-based lit-
erature on contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. Even though they are not
necessarily unique to this perspective, they coalesce to form an alternative
approach to the study of organizational paradoxes. The literature included in
this review embodies at least one, but frequently several of these dimensions,
depending on research designs and metatheoretical traditions. These dimen-
sions form a set of interrelated characteristics that aid in examining how ten-
sions, contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes form and play out in
organizations. They provide cues for deciphering how paradoxes emerge
from in situ practices and evolve into systemic patterns linked to multiple
organizational levels. They also provide a way to examine process outcomes,
which are the overall effects of enacting and responding to paradoxes under
diverse organizational circumstances.
Process Outcomes
Process outcomes are the systems’ effects that stem from responding to and
moving forward as tensions develop over time in streams of action. They
focus on the durable and transformative aspects of tension management and
the recurring ways that past contradictions enter into present and future organ-
izational practices. A constitutive view incorporates, but moves beyond, posi-
tive and negative consequences of paradoxes (e.g., generating creativity,
developing ambivalence, etc.; Smith & Lewis, 2011) by examining the outcomes
that occur from enacting contradictions in organizational processes.
We highlight six interrelated process outcomes that surface across the litera-
ture: (1) vicious and/or virtuous cycles; (2) double binds and paralysis; (3)
unintended consequences; (4) enabling and/or constraining actions; (5)
opening up and/or closing off participation; and (6) transforming or reprodu-
cing existing practices, structures, and systems (see Table 3). Vicious and vir-
tuous cycles, as other scholars have noted (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith, 2014;
Lüscher, Lewis, & Ingram, 2006; Putnam, 1986; Smith & Lewis, 2011), are itera-
tive spirals that grow out of the ways that actors respond to contradictions
(Masuch, 1985). Also known as causal loops or deviation-amplifying processes
(Maruyama, 1963; Weick, 1979), these self-reinforcing cycles typically grow
out of the action-based consequences of responding to contradictions in
ways that become linked to future interactions. They tie directly to paradoxes
since self-reinforcing cycles can develop into unusual routines or crazy systems
that generate confusion and blind alleys, often beginning where they end (Rice
& Cooper, 2010).
Whereas virtuous cycles embrace contradictory spirals in ways that inspire
learning, creativity, and discovery (Smith & Lewis, 2011), vicious cycles fuel
negative patterns of defensiveness and inertia (Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Smith,
2014; Lüscher et al., 2006; Putnam, 1986). Vicious cycles can also develop
into double binds or paralysis that stem from a perpetual oscillation between
non-existent alternatives or a feeling of being “damned if you do and
damned if you don’t” in a particular situation (Wagner, 1978; Watzlawick
et al., 1967; Wendt, 1998). Thus, a second type of process outcome, double
binds and paralysis, leave actors feeling paralyzed or entrapped (Bateson, 1972;
Ford & Backoff, 1988; Kets de Vries, 1978).
Similar to vicious cycles, responses to contradictions can also lead to conse-
quences that were not anticipated or intended. Unintended consequences are ones
that actors neither expected nor preferred, if they could have acted differently
(Jian, 2007b). They also entail actions that result in surprises or unanticipated
consequences, especially ones that end up the opposite of what was initially
desired (McKinley & Scherer, 2000). Other scholars focus on how managing
contradictions enables and/or constrains future actions through the ways that
structures and systems are both altered and reproduced, as evident in the
work on structuration (McPhee et al., 2014). The extent to which actors are
aware of system conditions and are able to monitor their activities aids in devel-
oping actions that foster opportunities and choices (Haslett, 2012).
A process outcome that surfaces in the critical and postmodern literatures is
the degree to which contradiction opens up or closes off participation. In effect,
tensions that arise from struggles over meaning often provide opportunities to
open dialogue, reveal hidden distortions, challenge inequities, and avoid pre-
mature closure that privileges some actors and marginalizes others (Deetz,
1992). As Mumby (2013) contends, “People don’t challenge or resist their
social reality because they often lack awareness of the contradictions on
which it is based” (p. 168).
Related to these struggles, scholars often cast contradiction as the driving
force of organizational transformation (McPhee et al., 2014; Van de Ven &
Poole, 1995). Transforming organizations, however, exists in a dialectical
relationship with reproducing the status quo; thus, unpacking this dialectic is
a key to deciphering how the enactment of contradiction contributes to chan-
ging or reproducing organizational ideologies, structures, and systems. These
six process outcomes are not mutually exclusive, and they surface in very
different ways across this literature. However, they form a typology for exam-
ining how organizational actors manage tensions and contradictions, often
through simultaneously enacting both change and continuity.
In effect, to develop a metaperspective related to a constitutive approach, we
apply the five dimensions and typology of outcomes to the process-based lit-
erature on organizational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes.4 Our
overall goal is to glean insights about these dimensions and types of process
outcomes from research that crosses five metatheoretical traditions. To this
end, we pose the following questions: How have scholars who study these con-
structs within a particular metatheoretical tradition embraced one or more of
these constitutive dimensions? What roles do these constructs play in different
metatheories? What types of process outcomes emerge from the research and
what can we learn about responding to and embracing tensions? To conduct
this review, we employed a multi-stage approach in sampling and classifying
the literature.
Methods
Initial Sample
Our review of the organizational literature on contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes began with a broad sweep of six major databases (i.e., Business
Source Complete, Communication Abstracts, Education Resources Information
Center, Education Source, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and
Web of Science) across the social and behavioral sciences. In each database, we
searched for articles that included the term(s) contradiction, dialectic, and/or
paradox in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. The term tension was excluded
from this search because it functioned as a meta-concept that ensnared too
many references, especially ones that were not relevant to this review. In
total, these database searches produced nearly 57,000 journal articles published
between 1945 and 2015. We then narrowed the sample to include only those
articles that combined the above terms with organization, management, leader-
ship, groups, or teams in their titles, abstracts, or keywords. This yielded 1946
total references. In addition, reference sections in articles were examined to
identify other publications that focused directly on contradictions, dialectics,
and paradoxes in organizations but were not included in our master list.
These searches identified journal articles that were not included in our database
as well as books and book chapters that we subsequently added to our reference
list.
Next, we confirmed the relevancy of the articles by reviewing the abstracts
for all references. Articles that simply mentioned contradictions, dialectics,
and/or paradoxes but did not directly examine these concepts were excluded
from the list. Publications that treated the three concepts in a superficial, mar-
ginal, or overly generalized way rather than as a phenomenon of interest were
also deleted from the list. Any articles that focused on contexts other than
organizations (e.g., families, romantic relationships, parents, society) or that
did not center on organizations per se were eliminated. To get a comprehensive
picture, we included empirical studies, essays and theory-building articles, lit-
erature reviews and critiques, and interventionist or practitioner-oriented
articles. We also classified and coded each article into over 30 different topic
areas in organizational studies.5
This sampling procedure produced a total of 852 publications that were
entered into a reference-management software platform called EndNote.
This software aided in verifying reference information and sourcing author-
identified keywords through the use of each article’s digital object identifier
(i.e., DOI number). When author-supplied keywords were unavailable,
subject terms listed in the article’s respective database (e.g., EBSCO, Web of
Science, etc.) were retrieved manually and substituted for keywords. We also
concentrated on articles published in organizational studies writ large, includ-
ing disciplinary and interdisciplinary outlets (e.g., organization, management,
22 †
Table 4 Publications on Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes between 1975-Present
Time Discipline
Organization, Management, & Interdisciplinary Social Public Administration, Marketing, Information &
Business1 Communication2 Sciences3 & Finance4 Technology5 Total
Before 1975 3 1 5 9
1975–1979 15 1 6 1 23
1980–1984 16 2 2 1 21
1985–1989 37 1 2 2 42
1990–1994 40 15 3 2 5 65
1995–1999 67 19 6 2 3 97
2000–2004 124 49 6 1 4 184
2005–2009 106 71 12 8 5 202
2010–2015 125 52 17 9 6 209
Total 533 211 59 26 23 852
Note: 141 total journals and 67 books/edited volumes represented in our database.
(Continued)
Table 4 (Continued)
1
Organization, Management, & Business Journals: Academy of Management Annals; Academy of Management Executive; Academy of Management Journal; Academy
of Management Learning & Education; Academy of Management Perspectives; Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management Review; Administrative
Science Quarterly; Asia Pacific Journal of Management; British Journal of Management; Business & Society; Business Ethics Quarterly; California Management Review;
Culture & Organization; Family Process; Gender, Work, & Organization; Harvard Business Review; Human Development; Human Relations; Human Systems

Management; Industrial & Corporate Change; Industrial & Organizational Psychology; International Journal of Cross Cultural Management; International Journal of
Human Resource Management; International Journal of Management Reviews; International Journal of Organizational Analysis; International Studies of Management and
Organization; International Journal of Project Management; Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of Business Research; Journal of Change Management; Journal of
Healthcare Management; Journal of International Business Studies; Journal of Management; Journal of Management & Organization; Journal of Management
Development; Journal of Management Education; Journal of Management Inquiry; Journal of Management Studies; Journal of Managerial Issues; Journal of Organizational
Behavior; Journal of Organizational Change Management; Leadership; Leadership Quarterly; Long Range Planning; M@n@gement; Management & Organization Review;
Management Decision; Management Science; Organization; Organization & Environment; Organization Science; Organization Studies; Organization Behavior & Human
Decision Processes; Organizational Dynamics; Scandinavian Journal of Management; Strategic Management Journal; Strategic Organization
2
Communication Journals: Australian Journal of Communication; Business Communication Quarterly; Canadian Journal of Communication; Communication &
Critical/Cultural Studies; Communication Monographs; Communication Quarterly; Communication Reports; Communication Studies; Communication Theory;
Communication Yearbook; Critical Discourse Studies; Discourse; Discourse & Society; Discourse Processes; Electronic Journal of Communication; Health
Communication; Howard Journal of Communications; Human Communication Research; International Journal of Communication; Journal of Applied Communication
Research; Journal of Business Communication; Journal of Communication Management; Journal of Public Relations Research; Management Communication Quarterly;
Qualitative Research Reports in Communication; Southern Communication Journal; Text; Text & Talk; Western Journal of Communication; Western Journal of Speech
Communication; Women & Language; Women’s Studies in Communication
3
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Journals: American Behavioral Scientist; American Journal of Sociology; American Psychologist; Ephemera: Theory & Politics in
Organization; Group Decision & Negotiation; International Journal of Conflict Management; International Journal of Intercultural Relations; Journal for Theory of Social
Behavior; Journal of Applied Behavioral Science; Journal of Applied Psychology; Journal of Conflict Resolution; Journal of Contemporary Ethnography; Journal of Social
& Personal Relationships; Law and Society Review; Negotiation & Conflict Management Research; Negotiation Journal; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes; Philosophical Psychology; Qualitative Health Research; Qualitative Research in Psychology; Rethinking Marxism; Small Group Research; Social Forces;
Sociological Quarterly; Sociological Review; Sociological Spectrum; Sociology
4
Public Administration, Marketing, & Finance Journals: Accounting, Organizations, & Society; Administration & Society; Citizenship Studies; Critical Perspectives on
Accounting; Design Issues; European Journal of Marketing; Financial Accountability & Management; Industrial Marketing Management; Journal of Marketing; Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory; Public Administration; Public Administration Review; Strategic Change; Teaching Public Administration
†
5
Information & Technology Journals: IEEE Transactions; Information Systems Research; Journal of Global Information Technology Management; Journal of
23
Information Technology; Journal of Management Information Systems; Journal of Operations Management; Journal of Strategic Information Systems; MIS Quarterly;
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems; Technovation
24 †
Table 5 Sampled Articles by Areas of Studies
Time Discipline
Organization Public
& Management Interdisciplinary Administration, Information &
Studies6 Communication7 Social Sciences8 Marketing, & Finance9 Technology10 Total
Before 1 1
1975
1975– 1979 8 1 1 10
1980– 1984 7 1 1 9
1985– 1989 13 1 1 15
1990– 1994 11 4 2 17
1995– 1999 20 8 3 1 2 34
2000– 2004 51 26 4 2 83
2005– 2009 42 33 7 3 4 89
2010– 2015 51 30 4 5 2 92
Total 204 102 20 12 12 350
Note: 84 different journals and 9 books/edited volumes represented in the sample.
(Continued)
Table 5 (Continued)

6
Organization, Management, & Business Journals: Academy of Management Journal; Academy of Management Perspectives; Academy of Management Review;
Administrative Science Quarterly; British Journal of Management; Business & Society; California Management Review; Culture and Organization; Gender Work and
Organization; Harvard Business Review; Human Development; Human Relations; International Journal of Management Reviews; International Journal of
Organizational Analysis; International Studies of Management and Organization; Journal of Business Ethics; Journal of Change Management; Journal of Management;
Journal of Management & Organization; Journal of Management Development; Journal of Management Inquiry; Journal of Management Studies; Journal of Managerial
Issues; Journal of Organizational Change Management; Leadership; Leadership Quarterly; Long Range Planning; Management and Organization Review; Management
Decision; Management Science; Organization; Organization Science; Organization Studies; Organizational Dynamics; Strategic Management Journal; Strategic
Organization
7
Communication Journals: Australian Journal of Communication; Business Communication Quarterly; Communication Monographs; Communication Quarterly;
Communication Reports; Communication Studies; Communication Theory; Critical Discourse Studies; Discourse & Society; Health Communication; Howard Journal
of Communication; International Journal of Communication; Journal of Applied Communication; Journal of Business Communication; Journal of Communication
Management; Management Communication Quarterly; Southern Communication Journal; Text; Western Journal of Communication; Western Journal of Speech
Communication; Women and Language
8
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Journals: Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization; Group Decision and Negotiation; Journal of Applied Behavioral Science;
Journal of Conflict Resolution; Journal of Contemporary Ethnography; Journal of Social and Personal Relationships; Negotiation and Conflict Management; Qualitative
Health Research; Small Group Research; Sociological Quarterly; Sociology
9
Public Administration, Marketing, & Finance Journals: Accounting, Organizations and Society; Citizenship Studies; Critical Perspectives on Accounting; Financial
Accountability & Management; Industrial Marketing Management; Public Administration; Public Administration Review
10
Information & Technology Journals: IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication; Information Systems Research; Journal of Global Information Technology;
Journal of Information Technology; Journal of Management Information Systems; Journal of Operations Management; MIS Quarterly; Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems
25 †
26
Table 6 Key References for Annals Review
†
Metatheoretical
Traditions References
Process-Oriented Abdallah et al. (2011); Andriopoulos (2003); Apker (2004); Argyris (1982); Arjoon (2006); Bartunek (1984); Bartunek and Rynes (2014); Beer
Systems (2001); Benn and Baker (2009); Bergadaà and Thiétart (1997); Bjerknes (1992); Bloodgood and Chae (2010); Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988);
(n ¼ 171) Bryson (2008); Calori (2002); Canary (2010a, 2010b); Carini, Palich, and Wagner (1995); Carlo et al. (2012); Carroll and Arneson (2003); Castello
and Lozano (2011); Castilla and Benard (2010); Chanin and Shapiro (1985); Child and McGrath (2001); Cho, Mathiassen, and Robey (2007);
Chreim (2005); Cooper, Hinings, Greenwood, and Brown (1996); Cosier (1983); Cosier and Aplin (1980); Cosier, Ruble, and Aplin (1978);
Costanzo and Di Domenico (2015); Cule and Robey (2004); Cunha (2004); Cunha, Kamoche, and Cunha (2003); Cunha, Rego, and Vaccaro
(2014); Das and Kumar (2010); Das and Teng (2000); Davis, Maranville, and Obloj (1997); De Cock and Rickards (1996); Delbridge and Edwards
(2013); Doyle, Claydon, and Buchanan (2000); Drummond (2008); Engeström and Sannino (2011); Fang (2005, 2012); Farjoun (2002, 2010); Fiol
(2002); Foldy (2006); Fombrun (1986); Foot (2001); Ford and Ford (1994, 1995); Freeman and Engel (2007); Garud, Kumaraswamy, and
Sambamurthy (2006); Gebert, Boerner, and Kearney (2010); Ghemawat and Costa (1993); Goldman (2008); Gondo and Amis (2013); Graetz and
Smith (2007, 2009); Gray, Bougon, and Donnellon (1985); Greenwood and Suddaby (2006); Grimes and Cornwall (1987); Groleau, Demers, and
Engeström (2011); Groleau, Demers, Lalancette, and Barros (2012); Haddadj (2006); Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, and Figge (2014); Hargrave and Van de
Ven (2006); Harvey (2014); Hedberg and Jönsson (1978); Hemetsberger and Reinhardt (2009); Hendry (1996); Hennestad (1990); Im and Rai
(2014); Jarzabkowski, Lê, and Van de Ven (2013); Jay (2013); Jenkins and Conley (2007); Jian (2007a, 2007b); Johansson and Stohl (2012); Juanillo
and Scherer (1995); Kerosuo (2011); Khazanchi, Lewis, and Boyer (2007); Klarner and Raisch (2013); Kleist (2013); Koene (2006); Kolb (1987);
Komporozos-Athanasiou and Fotaki (2015); Kozica, Gebhardt, Muller-Seitz, and Kaiser (2015); Ladge, Clair, and Greenberg (2012); Langley and
Sloan (2011); Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, and Van de Ven (2013); Leonard-Barton (1992); Leonardi, Jackson, and Diwan (2009); Littler and Innes
(2004); Long et al. (2008); Lüscher and Lewis (2008); Lüscher et al. (2006); Manz, Anand, Joshi, and Manz (2008); Marcus and Geffen (1998);
Marsh and Macalpine (1999); Mason (1969, 1996); Mason and Mitroff (1979); Mathiassen (1998); McDonald (2011); McGovern (2014); McGuire
(1992); Meyer (2006); Miller, Jablin, Casey, Lamphear-Van Horn, and Ethington (1996); Mills (2007); Mitroff and Emshoff (1979); Mitroff,
Emshoff, and Kilmann (1979); Molinsky (1999); Morrell (2011); Nasim and Sushil (2011); Neimark and Tinker (1987); Newhouse and Chapman
(1996); Nielsen (2008); Nielsen (1996); O’Dwyer (2005); O’Reilly and Tushman (2004, 2013); Orlikowski and Robey (1991); Orton and Weick
(1990); Osborn (1998); Pang, Cropp, and Cameron (2006); Peng and Nisbett (1999); Pierce and Aguinis (2013); Prenkert (2006); Pye (1993);
Qureshi and Keen (2005); Raza-Ullah, Bengtsson, and Kock (2014); Repenning (2002); Repenning and Sterman (2001); Rice and Cooper (2010);
Robey and Boudreau (1999); Robey and Holmstrom (2001); Robey, Ross, and Boudreau (2002); Rond and Bouchikhi (2004); Schreyögg and
Kliesch-Eberl (2007); Schreyögg and Sydow (2010); Schweiger and Sandberg (1989); Schweiger, Sandberg, and Ragan (1986); Schweiger, Sandberg,
and Rechner (1989); Schwenk (1984, 1989); Sharma and Good (2013); Sison (2010); Smith and Graetz (2006a); Smith and Tushman (2005);
Sorensen and Stuart (2000); Stacey (1995); Stevenson, Bartunek, and Borgatti (2003); Stoltzfus, Stohl, and Seibold (2011); Stoppelenburg and
Vermaak (2008); Sutherland and Smith (2011); Van de Ven (1992); Van de Ven and Poole (1995); Varman and Chakrabarti (2004); Vince and
Broussine (1996); Vlaar, Van den, Bosch, and Volberda (2007); Wagner (1978); Walsh and Fahey (1986); Wang and Li (2008); Westenholz (1993);
Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, and Jett (2008); Wooton (1977); Zeitz (1980); Ziller (1977)
Continued
Table 6 (Continued)
Metatheoretical
Traditions References

Structuration Coad and Glyptis (2014); Fairhurst et al. (2002); Golden, Kirby, and Jorgenson (2006); Goodier and Eisenberg (2006); Howard and Geist (1995);
(n ¼ 23) Kirby and Krone (2002); Leonardi, Treem, and Jackson (2010); Lourenco and Glidewell (1975); Meyers and Garrett (1993); Newell, Scarbrough,
and Swan (2001); Nicotera and Clinkscales (2010); Nicotera, Mahon, and Zhao (2010); Olufowote (2008); Popham (2003); Putnam (2013); Seal
and Ball (2011); Sherblom, Keranen, and Withers (2002); Sydow, Lerch, Huxham, and Hibbert (2011); Sydow and Windeler (2003); Taskin and
Devos (2005); Tullar and Kaiser (2000); Whittington (1992); Zilber (2002)
Critical Alvesson and Spicer (2012); Ann and Carr (2010); Carr (2000a, 2000b); Cheney (2008); Cheney and Cloud (2006); Chouliaraki and Fairclough
(n ¼ 20) (2010); Cloud (2005); Denhardt (1981); Ford and Harding (2008); Heydebrand (1977); Jermier (1985); Lourenco and Glidewell (1975); Neimark
and Tinker (1986); Ogbor (2000, 2001); Ortu (2008); Papa, Auwal, and Singhal (1995); Rusaw (2000); Wright and Manning (2004)
Postmodern Ahrens and Mollona (2007); Anderson and Buzzanell (2009); Aredal (1986); Ashcraft (2005, 2006); Badham, Garrety, Morrigan, Zanko, and
(n ¼ 89) Dawson (2003); Bartunek (2006); Berglund and Werr (2000); Buzzanell and Liu (2005, 2007); Callaghan and Thompson (2002); Carlone and
Larson (2006); Carroll and Nicholson (2014); Christensen, Morsing, and Thyssen (2015); Clair (1997); Collinson (2005, 2014); Coupland (2001);
Cyphert and Saiia (2004); Denis, Dompierre, Langley, and Rouleau (2011); Fleming (2007); Fletcher (2004); Ford (2006); Fyke and Buzzanell
(2013); Garrety, Badham, Morrigan, Rifkin, and Zanko (2003); Groscurth (2011); Hancock and Tyler (2001); Harter (2004); Harter, Scott, Novak,
Leeman, and Morris (2006); Hatch (1997); Henderson (2003); Hodgson (2004); Holmer-Nadesan (1996); Huxham and Beech (2003); Hylmö and
Buzzanell (2002); Johnson and Duberley (2003); Kan and Parry (2004); Katila and Merilainen (2002); Koschmann and Laster (2011); Kurian et al.
(2014); Larson and Tompkins (2005); Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (2013); Liu and Buzzanell (2004); Lynch (2009); MacKenzie (2008); Markham
(1996); McClellan (2011); McKinlay (2010); Mills (2002); Mumby (2005); Mumby and Putnam (1992); Mumby and Stohl (1991); Murphy (1998,
2003); Musson and Duberley (2007); Norander and Harter (2011); Norton (2009); O’Connor (1995); Pal and Buzzanell (2013); Palmer and
Dunford (2002); Porsander (2000); Pratt and Foreman (2000); Putnam (2004); Ramarajan and Reid (2013); Real and Putnam (2005); Rus (1980);
Ruud (2000); Sanders and McClellan (2014); Scott and Trethewey (2008); Sotirin and Gottfried (1999); Spicer and Sewell (2010); Stohl and Cheney
(2001); Sturdy (1997); Surman (2002); Symon, Buehring, Johnson, and Cassell (2008); Townley, Cooper, and Oakes (2003); Townsley and Geist
(2000); Trethewey (2001); Van den, Brink, and Stobbe (2009); Vanheule, Lievrouw, and Verhaeghe (2003); Wasson (2004); Whittle (2005, 2006);
Whittle et al. (2008); Wieland (2010, 2011); Wood and Conrad (1983); Yeung (2004); Ziegler (2007)
Relational Apker et al. (2005); Barge et al. (2008); Barge and Little (2002); Beech et al. (2004); Beech et al. (2009); Bochantin (2014); Bridge and Baxter (1992);
Dialectics Butler and Modaff (2008); Calton and Payne (2003); Clegg et al. (2002); Collier (2009); Considine and Miller (2010); Dean and Oetzel (2014);
(n ¼ 47) Donohue et al. (2014); Driskill et al. (2012); Erbert et al. (2005); Erhardt and Gibbs (2014); Galanes (2009); Gibbs (2009); Gordon (2010); Hopson
and Orbe (2007); Iedema et al. (2004); Jameson (2004); Jenkins and Dillon (2012); Johnson and Long (2002); Jones (1994); Jones and Bodtker
†
(1998); Kellett (1999); Kramer (2004); Levy-Storms, Claver, Gutierrez, and Curry (2011); Lewis et al. (2010); Martin et al. (2008); McGuire (2006);
27
McNamee and Peterson (2014); Medved et al. (2001); Norton and Sadler (2006); Olufowote (2011); Pitts et al. (2009); Putnam, Jahn, and Baker
(2011); Ruud and Sprague (2000); Sias et al. (2004); Steimel (2010); Thatcher (2011); Tracy (2004); Vaughn and Stamp (2003); Williams and
Connaughton (2012); Zorn et al. (2014)
and business; communication; interdisciplinary social sciences; public admin-

istration, marketing, and finance; and information technology). Table 4 pro-
vides an inventory and highlights the distribution of articles across these
research areas in five-year periods.
Publication Sample for this Review

For this review, we searched our database for publications that reflected key
descriptors of a constitutive approach to contradictions, dialectics, and para-
doxes. Thus, we examined titles and abstracts of each article to identify publi-
cations that centered on processes, practices, and actions/interactions
associated with these constructs. Specifically, we included publications with a
focus on at least one of the following features: (a) generating and making con-
tradictions salient to organizational actors; (b) tracking the development, evol-
ution, and fluctuation of contradictions over time; (c) describing the dynamic
interplay among dialectics and multiple contradictions; (d) focusing on how
organizational actors recognized, responded to, and managed contradictions,
dialectics, and paradoxes over time; and (e) deciphering the role of contradic-
tions and their evolution in institutional and organizational processes. Based
on these features, our final sample for this particular review included 350 pub-
lications (i.e., 341 journal articles and 9 books/book chapters). Table 5 reports
the distribution of these publications across arenas of organizational studies
and provides a list of the 84 different journals included in our sample.
After we determined the sample, two of the authors sorted the publications
into the five metatheoretical traditions6 based on theoretical assumptions,
design of the study, and the particular cast of the article on contradictions,
paradoxes, and dialectics (see Table 6). Each author then selected a particular
metatheoretical tradition and reviewed a subset of publications by noting the
subject and purpose of each article, definitions of focal constructs, dimensions
used in the publication, general findings regarding relevant constructs, and
process outcomes. Given the scope of this project, we concentrated on
metatheories that embraced a Western slant to contradictions, dialectics, and
paradoxes; thus, this review did not include Eastern or cross-cultural traditions
that organizational scholars have brought to the study of these constructs.7
Accordingly, throughout this review, we highlight exemplary articles in the
five metatheoretical traditions (i.e., process-oriented systems, structuration,
critical, postmodern, and relational dialectics theories—see Table 7) that
demonstrate key dimensions of a constitutive approach (i.e., discourse, devel-
opmental actions, socio-historical conditions, presence of multiples, and
praxis) and process outcomes. Table 7 provides an overview of the distinctive
features of these five metatheoretical traditions as well as the research streams,
sub-schools of thought, major theorists, and review essays that are associated
with them. Since the process-based systems tradition includes a large
Table 7 Distinctive Features of the Five Metatheoretical Traditions

Metatheoretical Traditions Distinctive Features Major Theorists & Review Essays
I. Process-Oriented Systems Benson (1977); Hegel (1969)

Duality theory as replacing . Dichotomous approaches to organizational change Janssens and Steyaert (1999)
dualisms . New directions promote duality awareness, Bouchikhi (1998); Farjoun (2010); Graetz and Smith
interdependence and dynamically-related opposites, and (2007, 2009)
complexity
Dialectics as motors of change . Contradictions serve as one of four motors or generative Ford and Backoff (1988); Van de Ven and Poole
and innovation mechanisms of change (e.g., value clashes, power (1995)
differentials among groups, etc.)
. Treated as discontinuous process linked to conflict,
power struggles, and synthesis
. New developments treat dialectics as continuous Calori (2002); Robey and Boudreau (1999)
movement across multiple levels without a clear synthesis
. Managing tensions through interdependencies across Andriopoulos (2003); Bledow et al. (2009); Zeitz
organizational levels (1980)
Contradictions as paths to . Latent contradictions that lay the seeds for change and Seo and Creed (2002)
institutional change fuel the paradox of embedded agency
. A dialectical process model in which stakeholders Das and Teng (2000); Farjoun (2002)
negotiate inherent contradictions in interorganizational
collaborations
†
Continued
29
30
Table 7 (Continued)
†

Contradictions and paradoxes . Tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes drive Cameron and Quinn (1988); Langley et al. (2013)
as patterns of change emergence, development, and process of organizational
change over time
. Responses to contradictions over time form paradoxes Clegg et al. (2002); Putnam (1986)
and relationships between opposite poles
. Contradictions as ebbs and . Paradox emerges as individual cognitive schema Lewis (2000); Westenholz (1993)
flows in organizational regarding contradictory forces
change . Systems can maintain “equilibrium” through adaptation Bateson (1972); Lewis (2000); Smith and Lewis
to the continuous push-pull in opposite directions (2011); Westenholz (1993)
. Making sense of paradoxes . New directions focus on sensemaking about Gray et al. (1985)
in ongoing changes contradictions as co-constructed meanings
. Contradictions as layered . Contradictions stem from socio-historical conditions in Blackler (1993); Engeström (2000)
tensions in activity systems which multiple tensions occur within and between
activity systems
II. Structuration Giddens (1979, 1984)

Interfacing primary and . Contradictions are structurally rooted as part of systems McPhee et al. (2014)
secondary contradictions production and reproduction
. Contradictions develop when structural properties of a Haslett (2012); Putnam (2013)
system contravene and work against each other;
secondary ones emerge as a result of primary ones and
produce tensions between the two
Continued
Table 7 (Continued)

Penetrating multiple systems . Contradictions in values and practices that amplify and Haslett (2012)
and historic periods build off each other in systems production
. Contradictions that recursively penetrate past and future Whittington (1992)
actions in systems reproduction
Negotiating the dialectic of . Complete control over another cannot be easily realized; McPhee et al. (2014)
control all actors participate in their own process of control and
have degrees of insight regarding it
. Power relations are defined through the interplay of
autonomy and dependence
III. Critical Management Marx (1906)

Contradictions as masking . Capitalist production obscures contradictions, Heydebrand (1977)
ideology and control particularly in shaping identities to fit the dominant
culture
. Dialectical materialism explores contradictions between Cheney and Cloud (2006)
the rhetoric of contemporary capitalism and its economic
and physical realities
Continued
31 †
Table 7 (Continued)
32
†
Resisting the dominant culture . Engaging in dialectical interactions as an ongoing Mumby (2014)
through dialectics and dialogue struggle over meaning provides an opportunity for
participants to surface ideologies and resist dominant
cultures
. Dialogue or interactions that pair experiences with Deetz (1992)
theory-practice disparities, reclaims taboo meanings, and
engages in resourceful sensemaking
IV. Postmodern Foucault (1977)

Tensions in negotiating multiple . Constructing the self amid organizational efforts to Mumby (2004)
identities control identities
. Multiple, divergent meanings (e.g., including values, Knights (1997); Taylor (2005)
assumptions, and beliefs) create tensions among
organizational subcultures
Dialectics as the interplay of . Interplay of micro-practices that enact power and Mumby (2005)
power and resistance resistance, often with the aim of transforming existing
structures and power relationships
. Micro-practices simultaneously resist and reproduce Zoller (2014)
dominant discourses, thus blurring the distinction
between power and resistance
Paradoxical practices in . Comparing focal organizations with their environments Cooper (1986)
constituting organizational . Contrasting old and new work arrangements
forms . Examining contemporary discourses in light of historical
ones
Continued

Table 7 (Continued)
V. Relational Dialectics Bakhtin (1981, 1986); Holquist (1981)
Identifying and managing . Based on the interplay between centripetal forces (ones Barge and Little (2002); Baxter (2011); Baxter and
dialectics that create unity) and centrifugal forces (create division). Montgomery (1996); Calton and Payne (2003);
Interplay between unity of opposites in working out Putnam et al. (2011); Putnam et al. (2014)
tensions (working out interrelationships)
Examining multiple tensions . Contradictions become interwoven with each other in Baxter (2011)
and voices knots and families
. Multiple voices as a way to keep incommensurate Barge and Little (2002); Christensen et al. (2015)
positions in play
33 †
number of studies and ones that have widely different orientations, this section
in the article is longer than the other four reviews.
Process-Oriented Systems Studies

Historical Foundations
Process-oriented systems perspectives for studying contradictions often track
their roots to Hegel (1969) and Benson’s (1977, 1983) discussions of struggle
between opposing forces and an eventual rupture that negates the current
social order. This process draws from four principles: contradiction (i.e.,
incompatibilities embedded in social orders), social construction (i.e., people
constructing organizations from mundane tasks), totality (i.e., organizations
as complex, interrelated wholes), and praxis (i.e., consciousness of dialectical
exigencies; Benson, 1977; Langley & Sloan, 2011). Change occurs through a
thesis (e.g., a position or decision) that becomes challenged by an antithesis
and resolved through a synthesis or novel construction that differs from the
two. A synthesis then develops into a new thesis-antithesis relationship and
the dialectical process continues. Dialectical analysis entails a search for the
fundamental principles that account for the emergence and dissolution of
organizational orders (Benson, 1983).
Drawing from different features of this metatheory, process-based systems
views on the study of contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes have splintered
into widely different schools of thought.8 Yet, researchers typically embrace
three common assumptions, namely: (1) organizations are in states of becom-
ing; (2) they must deal with contradictory interests that cross multiple levels;
and (3) organizations aim for equilibrium or a balance between the push-
pulls of opposing forces. Even though this work covers a vast array of
topics,9 the majority of it focuses on organizational change and innovation.
Thus, in the interest of brevity and coherence, this review focuses on the
role of contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in the organizational change
literature. In doing so, it extends yet differs from Langley and Sloan’s (2011)
chapter on dialectics in organizational change.10
Overview of Research
This section aims to decipher the roles that dualism, dialectics, contradiction,
and paradox play in the process-based literature on organizational change and
innovation. As such, it highlights three key dimensions of the constitutive view:
developmental actions, namely, how tensions evolve over time in the change
process; how multiple levels and tensions enter into this process; and praxis,
how actors’ awareness or consciousness of contradictions becomes a factor
in responding to them. As such, this literature falls into four broad categories:
(1) duality theory as replacing dualisms, (2) dialectics as motors of change and
innovation, (3) contradictions as paths to institutional change, and (4) para-
doxes and contradictions as recursive patterns of change (see Table 7). Prac-
titioners also employ contradictions in organizational development, and this
topic will be covered in the section on managing and responding to paradoxes.
Duality theory as replacing dualisms. The research on organizational

change was replete with dualisms; that is, scholars typically treated the
change process as either planned or emergent, internally or externally-
driven, continuous or episodic, proactive or reactive, or open or closed in sta-

keholder participation (Farjoun, 2002; Nasim & Sushil, 2011). Seo, Putnam,
and Bartunek (2004) tracked the evolution of these binaries across three gen-
eration of planned change practices and noticed how scholars began to inte-
grate opposites rather than select one pole over the other.
Recent work on duality theory cast stability and change as complementary.
Specifically, scholars showed how stability enabled change through channeling
resources into innovation, and how change fostered continuity through enhan-
cing adaptability and experimentation (Farjoun, 2010; Smith & Graetz, 2006b).
Advocates of duality theory, then, redefined traditional binaries of change as
interdependent, dynamically interrelated, bi-directional, and improvisational
rather than pitted against each other (Farjoun, 2010; Graetz & Smith, 2007,
2009; Sutherland & Smith, 2011). Yet, duality theorists often lacked specificity
as to how binaries implicated each other and how organizational scholars could
move beyond abstract themes to the grounded, day to day interactions that
held stability and change together. Scholars that treated dialectics as a motor
of change, in turn, aimed to capture the dynamics of contradictions in the
change process.
Dialectics as motors of change and innovation. In the systems literature,

dialectics served as one of four generative mechanisms of organizational
change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), one that stood in contrast to teleological
(i.e. goal setting and planning), life cycle (i.e., sequential, stage, and cyclical
models), and evolutionary (i.e., natural selection) change processes. Drawn
from Hegel’s (1969) opposition between thesis and antithesis, dialectical pro-
cesses entailed a power struggle between two colliding forces that competed
for control (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). The syn-
thesis that resulted from this struggle represented a discontinuous, second
order change that departed from the past by introducing a novel and unprece-
dented form. Importantly, dialectical processes often interfaced with other
motors of change in a hybrid, multilayered combination of sequences, evol-
utionary periods, and revolutionary crises (Poole & Van de Ven, 2004).
Research that examined the emergence of dialectical change affirmed the
presence of multiple motors, but also challenged the view that dialectical
change necessarily occurred through confrontation, conflict, and synthesis.

Particularly, in studies that focused on new technologies, dialectical processes
surfaced as ongoing tensions, such as centralization versus de-centralization or
technology versus market forces, rather than culminating in overt or manifest
conflict (Cule & Robey, 2004; Nielsen, 2008; Robey & Boudreau, 1999). More-
over, the dialectical forces that promoted or impeded change were also indeter-
minate, which accounted for the variety of outcomes among the thirteen
organizations that implemented a new enterprise accounting system (Robey,
Ross, & Boudreau, 2002).11 Other studies showed that contradictions devel-
oped into a nexus or integration across multiple organizational arenas (i.e.,

institution, market, and product development) rather than leading to a conflict,
rupture, or synthesis (Marcus & Geffen, 1998).
These findings suggested a different logic to account for the role of dialectics
during the change process. Specifically, Calori (2002) incorporated all four
motors of change and advocated connecting past with future actions (i.e.
becoming) and association with disassociation (i.e., relating) in developing
his model of creative dialectical evolution. Other scholars combined dialectics
with narrative theory or with structuration to account for tensions in structure-
action relationships that crossed local and global levels (Orlikowski & Robey,
1991).
The work on dialectics in organizational innovation also examined develop-
mental processes, particularly in illustrating how contradictions between idea
generation and implementation existed in an interdependent relationship
(Bledow et al., 2009; Smith & Tushman, 2005). Drawing on Hegel’s (1969)
notions of thesis and antithesis, Bledow et al. (2009) posited principles for
managing dialectics in innovation, namely, avoid dichotomous thinking, use
higher levels to address variability at lower ones, capitalize on interdependence
across organizational levels, and engage in dialogue between research and prac-
tice. Similarly, scholars advocated that teams could promote innovation
through combining open processes of knowledge generation with closed
ones that integrated diverse ideas (Gebert, Boerner, & Kearney, 2010).
These findings added a developmental cast to the work on paradoxes and
ambidexterity (Andriopoulos, 2003; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009), particularly
by adopting a process approach and avoiding structural or temporal separation
in favor of an evolutionary view of exploitation and exploration (Gebert et al.,
2010; Im & Rai, 2014). Other scholars pointed out that holding these opposites
together was tenuous and often disintegrated into favoring one pole over the
other (Langley & Sloan, 2011), as occurred in a study of dialectical tensions
in telehealth innovations between rural and urban hospitals (Cho, Mathiassen,
& Robey, 2007).
Contradictions as paths to institutional change. In addition to serving as

drivers of change, contradictions charted paths for institutional change.
Traditional approaches in institutional work relied primarily on static models,

namely, logics that fostered convergence (e.g., institutional isomorphism, imi-
tating other fields) or contestations between fields (Farjoun, 2002). Recent
work, however, treated change as occurring developmentally through the
ways that contradictory forces played out in institutional entrepreneurship
and interorganizational collaborations.
In institutional entrepreneurship, Seo and Creed (2002) posited four field-
based contradictions12 that set the stage for change and invoked the paradox of
embedded agency (i.e., actors who transformed social arrangements while
being constrained within their institutional contexts). Praxis or consciousness

of contradictions emerged as the key factor for reconciling this paradox and
engaging in transformation (Delbridge & Edwards, 2013; Greenwood &
Suddaby, 2006; Koene, 2006). For interorganizational collaborations, dialecti-
cal models rooted historically in past practices shaped present modes of collec-
tive actions (Farjoun, 2002; Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006). Negotiating these
dialectics often determined the outcomes of mergers and alliances, particularly
in terms of cooperation-competition, rigidity-flexibility, and short-long term
goals (Das & Kumar, 2010; Das & Teng, 2000). These negotiations were not
deterministic in that middle managers often implemented CEO strategic
initiatives in contradictory ways (Meyer, 2006; Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004)
and ways of communicating initiatives sometimes worked against a successful
collaboration by invoking paradoxical practices, for example, sharing infor-
mation by withholding it (Johansson & Stohl, 2012) and developing efficient
inefficiencies (Stoltzfus et al., 2011).
From a constitutive view, this work was not only developmental but also
incorporated praxis. Moreover, some studies even departed from equilibrium
models of change through setting “aside any monistic expectations of order,
homogeny, teleology, constancy, life span, or success” (Rond & Bouchikhi,
2004, p. 67). The majority of institutional studies on contradictions,
however, centered on large-scale events rather than on the interactions that
constituted these alliances.
Contradictions and paradoxes as recursive patterns of change. Research

that embraced process ontologies, in turn, centered on the developmental
role of contradictions in dynamic actions and interactions over time. Scholars
examined how dialectics emerged, evolved, dissolved, and reproduced in
ongoing actions that crossed organizational levels (Jay, 2013; Langley, Small-
man, Tsoukas, & Van de Ven, 2013). Process theorists also focused on the
nesting of contradictions and paradoxes in recursive patterns, rhythms,
stages, and even socio-historical conditions. Three clusters of studies accounted
for these changes: (1) contradictions as ebbs and flows in organizational
change, (2) making sense of paradoxes in ongoing changes, and (3) multiple
contradictions layered in activity systems.
Contradictions as ebbs and flows in organizational change. Studies

of the ebbs and flows of contradictions often focused on the oscillation and
rhythms between stability and change (Klarner & Raisch, 2013). In an investi-
gation of product implementations over a two-year period, these cycles formed
a recursive relationship as identity and performance paradoxes became
embedded in structuring practices across micro, meso, and macro levels (Jar-
zabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013). Thus, the ongoing process of organizing
became defined by paradoxes as actors shifted from defensive reactions to
active acceptance of contradictions and as these responses reconstructed para-
doxical organizational structures.

Similarly, for a CEO succession in a family firm, the simultaneous interplay
of stability-instability and complex versus simple actions created paradoxes
over time that infused the financial planning and restructuring of the firm.
Raising awareness of these paradoxes and processing them in webs of inter-
actions eventually fostered flexibility and creativity in the succession decision
(Haddadj, 2006).
Making sense of paradoxes in ongoing changes. The work on para-

doxes, contradictions, and sensemaking in organizational change drew from
three different approaches: cognitive schemas, collective mindfulness, and
co-developed interpretations. Treating paradox as a frame of reference (Wes-
tenholz, 1993), researchers who nested sensemaking in individual cognitions
observed that perceptions of paradoxes often blocked actors’ abilities to alter
meanings amid complex ongoing changes (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith &
Tushman, 2005), especially when paradoxes emanated from mixed messages;
fueled recursive cycles; and became nested in multiple organizational levels
of performing, organizing, and belonging (Lüscher et al., 2006; Lüscher &
Lewis, 2008). Research reported that organizational members embraced con-
tradictions when they developed a sense of collective mindfulness by engaging
in such practices as avoiding simple interpretations, becoming sensitive to
operations, developing attitudes of resilience, downplaying structures, and
bridging both mindful and mindless activities over space and time (Carlo
et al., 2012).
In contrast to cognitive schemas and collective mindfulness, scholars who
examined the co-development of interpretations during a change process
treated sensemaking about contradictions as emerging collectively from
ongoing interactions (Foldy, 2006). Awareness of contradictions often trig-
gered new interpretations and even covert resistance to change (Jian, 2007a)
or resulted in increased team control to manage incompatibilities between pro-
fessional roles and systems-level mandates (Apker, 2004). These studies treated
sensemaking as an interactional process in which actors engaged in the con-
struction and deconstruction of meanings, clashes between new and old inter-
pretive schemes, and the potential for second-order transformations in the
change process (Bartunek, 1984; Gray, Bougon, & Donnellon, 1985). Engaging
with contradictions, then, was closely tied to developing activity systems.
Contradictions as layered tensions in activity systems. Activity

systems were defined as collections of people, tools, and practices involved
in accomplishing tasks (Canary, 2010b). In this approach, contradictions
stemmed from socio-historical conditions that crossed organizational-societal
levels and often occurred in primary and secondary relationships (Groleau,
Demers, & Engeström, 2011). For example, research revealed that primary
contradictions in cost containment often engendered secondary ones in the

value or usefulness of practices (Engeström & Sannino, 2011; Groleau,
Demers, Lalancette, & Barros, 2012; Kerosuo, 2011). In activity systems, con-
tradictions also occurred between old and new policy systems (Canary, 2010a,
2010b), central activities and disconnected events (Popham, 2003; Prenkert,
2006), and among communities involved in division of labor (Foot, 2001).
The ways that these levels interfaced over time influenced whether these con-
tradictions led to challenging new initiatives, reenacting existing practices, or
developing into new directions (Groleau et al., 2012).
The majority of activity system studies, however, located contradictions
within pre-formed systems; hence, they minimized the role of ongoing inter-
actions in constituting the system itself (see Hemetsberger & Reinhardt,
2009 for an exception to this critique). Moreover, the process-based systems
literature held an implicit bias for equilibrium or restoring order and a ten-
dency to situate contradictions in large-scale systems. Yet, as these studies indi-
cated, ongoing development of change, responses to contradictions, and
patterns of co-developing interpretations had direct implications on process
outcomes in managing contradictions and change.
Process Outcomes
Four types of process outcomes surfaced in this body of literature, namely, vir-
tuous and vicious cycles, double binds and inertia, unintended consequences,
and transforming organizational systems. As self-reinforcing spirals, virtuous
cycles resulted in learning and creativity and stemmed from becoming aware
of tensions (Haddadj, 2006), engaging in praxis (Delbridge & Edwards, 2013;
Koene, 2006; Seo & Creed, 2002), developing paradoxical thinking (Lüscher
& Lewis, 2008; Smith & Tushman, 2005), attending to competing demands
simultaneously (Carlo et al., 2012), and adopting regular intervals of stability
and change (Klarner & Raisch, 2013).
Vicious cycles, in contrast, set off spirals of behavioral and structural con-
tradictions that escalated out of control (Das & Kumar, 2010; Jarzabkowski
et al., 2013). These patterns emanated from mixed messages linked to blocking
acceptable alternatives (Engeström & Sannino, 2011), secondary
contradictions that developed in moving from individual to collective experi-

ences (Hennestad, 1990; Kerosuo, 2011; Popham, 2003), and multiple contra-
dictory processes that became entangled across organizational levels (Apker,
2004). These patterns developed into double binds when actors felt trapped,
could not solve problems through individual actions, and felt unable to com-
municate about them (Apker, 2004; Engeström & Sannino, 2011; Hennestad,
1990; Kerosuo, 2011).
The majority of systems studies centered on process outcomes that led to
unintended or unanticipated consequences. Scholars noted that planned
change efforts were often paradoxical, resulting in the opposite of what was
intended (De Cock & Rickards, 1996; Doyle, Claydon, & Buchanan, 2000).
In particular, unintended consequences stemmed from leadership issues, for
example, top managers who initiated change but failed to monitor or intervene
during the implementation stage (Meyer, 2006); planned change that created
order for executives and disorder for employees (McKinley & Scherer, 2000);
CEOs who developed paradoxical situations among stakeholders in response
to institutional contradictions (Stoltzfus et al., 2011); and managerial actions
that favored one pole over the other (e.g., cooperation and competition; Das
& Teng, 2000; Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004).
Unanticipated consequences also occurred from contradictions that
appeared on one plane and displaced changes on another (Abdallah et al.,
2011); collective interpretations of change that contradicted the aims of the
process (Harris & Ogbonna, 2002; Jian, 2007b), and swift adoption of
changes among actors at one level that contradicted fundamental organiz-
ational values (Cho et al., 2007; Grimes & Cornwall, 1987).
Several studies reported that contradictions and paradoxes fostered trans-
formation, particularly through engaging oppositional views in effective con-
frontation and synthesis (Bartunek, 1984), developing a collaborative set of
interactions that transcended contradictions (Hemetsberger & Reinhardt,
2009), and generating novel creations or the idea of a “thirdness” that goes
beyond transcending opposites (Engeström & Sannino, 2011).
Overall, process-oriented systems studies make three key contributions to a
constitutive view of paradoxes. First, process studies by definition are develop-
mental and thus move traditional research on organizational paradoxes to
ongoing evolution of actions. Developmental actions are embedded in dialec-
tics as motors of change; chart the path for institutional change; and serve as
recursive patterns that shape the rhythms, intervals, and flows of the change
process. Nesting contradictions in multiple levels, a second contribution, is a
hallmark of the systems perspective. Yet, with the exception of activity theor-
ists, multiple levels function primarily as a backdrop for embedded contradic-
tions. Activity theorists, in contrast, focus directly on multiple systems levels
(e.g. central systems, organizational-societal) and multiple tensions (i.e.,
primary and secondary). For the most part, nesting contradictions in multiple
organizational units increases the complexity of managing tensions, often

resulting in vicious cycles and double binds.
A third contribution of the systems literature focuses on the role of praxis,
especially in mediating the paradox of embedded agency in institutional
change (Seo & Creed, 2002), aiding in the development of collective mindful-
ness (Carlo et al., 2012), and engendering flexibility through webs of inter-
actions during change (Engeström & Sannino, 2011; Haddadj, 2006). At the
individual level, perceptions of paradoxes also block an actor’s abilities to
alter meanings in the midst of complex change (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Per-
ceptions, though, do not necessarily evoke deep levels of consciousness nor

produce the reflexivity to act in paradoxical situations.
Structuration Studies
In contrast to process studies in the systems tradition, structuration research
focuses on the relationship between systems and structures grounded in
socio-historic processes, especially in the actions and interactions that
produce and reproduce systems (i.e., groups, organizations, institutions) and
structures (Giddens, 1979, 1984). In structuration, actors engage in systems
production by drawing on structures to act in meaningful ways; they reproduce
systems through actions and interactions that maintain broad structural prin-
ciples (McPhee et al., 2014). Structures are both the medium and the outcome
of organizing and contradictions emerge from structural properties (i.e., rules,
resources, norms) that contravene or oppose one another in systems develop-
ment (Whittington, 1992). In the process of structuration, systems often live in
tension with the contradictory structures that oversee them (Howard & Geist,
1995).
Structuration studies differ from process-based systems research in examin-
ing how contradictions intertwine recursively in systems development. While
contradictions form the “fault lines” for conflict, unlike dialectics as motors
of change, they do not necessarily lead to active struggles, especially if they
are multiple, dispersed, and repressed (Putnam, 2013). Similar to activity
theory, structuration scholars view primary and secondary contradictions as
critical to social change in that actions taken in processing them reproduce
or break from socio-historic patterns (Giddens, 1984).
All five dimensions of the constitutive approach play a vital role in structura-
tion studies. Specifically, contradictions emanate discursively and developmen-
tally from actions and interactions in the production and reproduction of
systems. Moreover, discursive practices shape how actors embody conscious-

ness or praxis to penetrate their actions. In fact, Giddens (1984) identifies
three types of praxis that scholars have applied; namely, discursive (i.e.,
being able to formulate what is happening in thoughts and words), practical
(i.e., knowing how to act), and limited consciousness (i.e., feeling tensions
and anxiety, but not being aware of what is happening). Structuration
studies also investigate multiple contradictions that are drawn from socio-his-
torical conditions, especially as they interface across different social systems,
including teams, organizational, and institutional. The research on contradic-
tions in structuration studies falls into three main categories: (1) interfacing
primary and secondary contradictions, (2) penetrating multiple systems and
historic periods, and (3) negotiating dialectics of control in power relationships
(see Table 7).
Interfacing primary and secondary contradictions. Structuration research-

ers treated primary and secondary contradictions as embedded in the pro-
duction and reproduction of socio-historic and institutional systems.
Specifically, primary contradictions were inherent tensions rooted in the
very nature of a system (e.g., capitalism), which gave rise to secondary ones
that produced tensions that impinged on systems production. For example,
in a study of three successive downsizings, the primary contradiction of
people versus profits gave rise to secondary ones of voluntary versus involun-
tary layoffs and velvet boot versus “pack your bag” strategies for reductions in
force, thus, producing dual missions (Fairhurst, Cooren, & Cahill, 2002).
Primary contradictions of people versus profits also triggered secondary ones
in an organizational merger (Howard & Geist, 1995) and in stakeholder pro-
tests regarding product changes and corporate social responsibility (Meyers
& Garrett, 1993).
These findings tied directly to the paradox of delayering in organizational
restructuring; that is, layoffs often involved the most qualified workers and
in many instances, the overall numbers of employees remained the same
(Littler & Innes, 2004). Studies of primary and secondary contradictions in
structuration, however, typically located primary ones in large-scale, socio-his-
torical contradictions such as capitalism and its relation to the labor process
without consideration of how these practices have changed over time
(Mumby, 2014).
Penetrating multiple systems and historic periods. Structuration studies

also revealed how contradictions in organizational values, philosophies, and
operations penetrated multiple levels and historic periods. To illustrate, contra-
dictory values that infused rule-making procedures became linked to macro
level structures, as surfaced in a school board negotiation (Keough & Lake,
1993) and in the ways that organizations implemented work-life policies
(Golden, Kirby, & Jorgenson, 2006). In the latter case, Kirby and Krone (2002)
discovered that even though organizations offered flexible work arrangements
to employees, contradictions that emerged in interactions about work assign-
ments, performance evaluations, and work group norms often deterred indi-
viduals from using them.
Research also revealed how organizational members (re)produced contra-
dictions in team, organizational, and institutional levels. For example,
Sydow, Lerch, Huxham, and Hibbert (2011) found that teams instantiated con-
tradictions in organizational systems through simultaneously disclosing and
withholding data as well as ignoring and recognizing existing networks.

Drawing on contradictory stocks of knowledge, however, made it possible
for a non-profit health care system to reshape definitions of spirituality and
move to a corporate-based model of care (Goodier & Eisenberg, 2006). In
this way, contradictions in systems operations enabled team and organizational
members to move forward and adapt to changes.
However, contradictions that penetrated multiple systems and historic
periods often constrained actions through reproducing incompatible struc-
tures. Specifically, research on hospitals in the era of managed care demon-
strated how contradictions infused multiple supervisory, organizational, and
institutional systems to create a structural divergence in operations that
immobilize health care workers (Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010; Nicotera,
Mahon, & Zhao, 2010). As with managed care, Olufowote (2008) observed
that current practices of informed consent (i.e., laws requiring shared infor-
mation about medical treatment risks and benefits) drew on historic systems
of control (i.e. physician and hospital administration) to enact contradictory
practices in information disclosure with patients. Similarly, changes in insti-
tutional structures that redefined game wardens as law enforcement agents
produced contradictions that created incompatibilities in job performance
and agency coordination (Sherblom, Keranen, & Withers, 2002). Thus, contra-
dictory structures as both the medium and output of past practices infused
interactions within multiple systems in ways that often led to the development
of paradoxes.
Two types of paradoxes surfaced in examining contradictory structures and
systems. In a local school system, actors drew on procedures in policy develop-
ment to exert organizational control while they insisted on autonomy in inter-
preting what the policies meant (Canary, 2010a). In a study of telework, an
individual-collective paradox mediated an autonomy-control one to privilege
a new form of individualization in human resource practices (Taskin &
Devos, 2005). Contradictions in telework also developed into a connectivity
paradox in which close connections among distributed workers created the
need for distance in order to get the work done (Leonardi, Treem, &
Jackson, 2010). This type of structuration work was admirable in its focus
on tracking contradictions across multiple systems and historic periods. Yet,
it lacked an explicit focus on how levels of consciousness enabled or con-

strained organizational structures and actions.
Negotiating the dialectic of control. Issues of power also surfaced in con-

cerns for autonomy and control in that some actors had more access to
rules and resources than did others. For Giddens (1979), the dialectic of
control referred to a dynamic interplay between autonomy and dependence;
that is, all actors participated in their own processes of control and had differ-
ent degrees of insight or awareness into it. In negotiating this interplay, agents
were situated; strategies were often met with counterstrategies; and social posi-
tioning was negotiated relative to others (McPhee et al., 2014).
As an example, being aware of contradictions influenced employees’
responses to change as they negotiated the dialectic of control in a corporate
merger (Howard & Geist, 1995). Specifically, employees who had discursive
awareness of their situation felt empowered and responded through construct-
ing a new space or zone of autonomy while actors who had limited conscious-
ness of the contradictions in the merger felt powerless, estranged, and betrayed.
Heightened awareness of contradictions made it possible for partners in a joint
venture to negotiate autonomy and control in profit appropriations by creating
complementary incentives to uphold their agreement (Coad & Glyptis, 2014).
A budgetary reform process in a UK educational system also illustrated the
dialectic of control in that local players had short term success while the central
government altered the rules to increase their long term power (Seal & Ball,
2011). Local players lacked practical consciousness of the dialectic and failed
to realize that negotiating budgetary rules in one cycle produced a different
set of rules for the next cycle. In effect, focusing on the dialectic of control
made consciousness of contradictions central to negotiating power. As such,
it filled an important vacuum; however, often at the loss of being able to
unpack the ways that contradictions spread across multiple systems.
Process outcomes
Through examining the role of contradictions in producing systems, these
studies illustrated how process outcomes emerged from ongoing actions and
interactions. Even though vicious cycles, double binds (e.g., negative spirals
in managed care; Nicotera et al., 2010), and unintended consequences (e.g.,
studies of downsizing; Fairhurst et al., 2002) surfaced in these studies,13 the
majority of findings focused on how contradictions enabled or constrained
future actions.
Importantly, praxis played a key role in how contradictions enabled future
actions; namely, consciousness of contradictions and power relationships (i.e.,
especially discursive and practical awareness) enabled actors to negotiate
autonomy and dependence (Coad & Glyptis, 2014), create a personal zone
during a merger (Howard & Geist, 1995), regain flexibility in managing the
connectivity paradox (Leonardi et al., 2010), and openly engage colleagues in
policy deliberations (Canary, 2010a). In contrast, ongoing processes con-
strained actors when they exhibited limited consciousness of contradictions
(Seal & Ball, 2011) or viewed them as embedded in interwoven systems that
were impossible to penetrate (e.g., in supervisory practices, meritocracy cri-
teria, institutional regulations, and societal expectations; Kirby & Krone,
2002; Olufowote, 2008; Sherblom et al., 2002).
Structuration studies embody the dimensions of a constitutive view and
make a number of contributions to the research on contradictions and para-

doxes. First, the majority of studies examine how systems are produced discur-
sively and developmentally through focusing on actions and interactions
grounded in routine practices (Canary, 2010a; Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010).
Second, researchers often situate these practices in socio-historic conditions
in which past actions impinge on current activities in producing systems
across multiple levels (Kirby & Krone, 2002; Olufowote, 2008; Sherblom
et al., 2002). Third, structuration provides a framework for examining the
ways that primary and secondary contradictions interface with each other
(Fairhurst et al., 2002; Howard & Geist, 1995) and how multiple contradictions
develop into paradoxical situations (Leonardi et al., 2010; Sydow & Windeler,
2003; Taskin & Devos, 2005). Finally, structuration raises issues about power
relationships through the dialectic of control and opportunities to develop
praxis in responding to contradictions. Overall, a key concern in this
metatheoretical tradition is finding ways to tie the strains of it together,
given that each one privileges different features of the structure-system
relationship.
Critical Studies
Even though the critical tradition has not generated as much empirical research
on contradiction as the other paradigms, its theoretical contributions inform
other perspectives. Clearly, Giddens (1979) drew on critical theory by ground-
ing contradictions in primary tensions of capitalism and in the dialectic of
control. Scholars who employ Hegel’s (1969) view of dialectics as struggles
between opposing forces also tap into contributions drawn from critical
studies. Yet, in contrast to other views, contradiction in critical studies forms
the foundation of an inherent struggle between private ownership (i.e., econ-
omic relationships) and socialized production in which capitalism masks the
extraction of surplus value from workers and leads to concentrating power
in owners and managers (Marx, 1906). For critical scholars, this struggle
infuses class conflicts, instantiates incompatibilities between management
and labor, and leads to inequitable distribution of power in capitalistic

societies. Marx drew on but departed from Hegel’s (1969) notion of dialectics
by situating these struggles in capitalism’s material contradictions that shaped
modes of production, domination, and instrumental rationality.14
Although current scholars have moved away from the pure economic deter-
minism of Marx, critical theorists have retained an interest in contradictions
that arise in ideology and capitalism’s influence on the labor process. Early
work has also been critiqued for either reifying control (e.g., some Marxist
studies) at the expense of resistance (e.g., failing to explain how control mech-
anisms are produced, resisted, and adapted), or exaggerating resistance with an

uncritically celebrated view of agency (Mumby, 2005; Zoller, 2014). Critical
theorists who are sensitive to this critique often partner with postmodernism,
particularly in examining discourse and power in a materialistic world (Hey-
debrand, 1977; Mumby, 2014). However, critical theory continues to struggle
with offering viable alternatives to capitalism, a concern that may account
for less critical research, particularly among North American scholars.
Four dimensions of the constitutive view typify studies that embrace a critical
lens. First, contradictions develop in and through political processes of discur-
sive translation; that is, ways of translating routine organizational activities into
material (commodity values) and symbolic (capitalist ideology) outcomes that
reproduce systems of control. These processes occur through language and dis-
cursive patterns that make fundamental contradictions appear opaque, subtle,
and natural (Deetz, 1992). Second, similar to structuration, a critical lens
reclaims the socio-historical context of contradictions in organizational life as
well as their developmental or evolutionary processes linked to tension man-
agement outcomes. Third, a critical lens is multilevel in that individual
action is always constrained by the collective action of a dominant few.
Fourth, praxis not only refers to an awareness of contradictions, but also to
the effects of power that underlie oppositional struggles. It calls for a critical
reflexivity that is uncommon in the practitioner literature (Cunliffe, 2004),
one that moves from individuals to developing a collective consciousness.
Research that embraces a critical lens focuses on two categories: (1) contradic-
tions as masking ideology and control and (2) resisting the dominant structure
through dialectics and dialogue (see Table 7).
Contradictions as masking ideology and control. Research in the critical

tradition often critiqued the ways that capitalist production obscured contra-
dictions, particularly in shaping identities to fit the dominant culture. For
example, Ogbor (2000) revealed how the discourse of entrepreneurialism set
up tensions between opposites (i.e., male-female, white-non-white) that
required non-European and non-English speakers to embrace the prototype of

the dominant group. In a similar way, discourses of corporate culture and cul-
tural training masked contradictions between labor and management through
disempowering employees and minimizing the importance of diversity (Ogbor,
2000). On the issue of social class, Ortu (2008) claimed that contradictions in
capitalist economies stymied the development of class-consciousness and
inhibited meaningful class struggle through making ideologies opaque (see
also Neimark & Tinker, 1986, 1987).
In addition, the rhetoric of classlessness that depicted contemporary capit-
alism served to mask the contradictory interests of workers and employers.

Specifically, Cloud (2005) and Cheney and Cloud (2006) used dialectical mate-
rialism to explore contradictions between the participatory, egalitarian rhetoric
of capitalism versus its economic and physical realities. They observed that
changes in workers’ discourses from ‘warrior’ to ‘victim’ to ‘martyr’ demon-
strated shifts in power relations that obscured the economic basis for union
action.
Control also became obscured in contradictions that developed in a team-
based program for the economically disadvantaged at India’s Grameen Bank
(Papa, Auwal, & Singhal, 1995). Steeped in a culture that relegated women
to the home, contradictions between traditional male and female roles,
public and private spheres, and control versus emancipation led to a system
in which participants became their own oppressors. Specifically, fieldworkers
who were accountable to their own team members worked long hours, gave
up vacations, and pressured each other to repay loans in gratitude for the econ-
omic and social empowerment that the bank provided. In this way, the contra-
dictions between labor and management in capitalism extended to the teams’
system of control.
Resisting the dominant culture through dialectics and dialogue. Actors that
engaged in an ongoing struggle over meaning, however, provided an opportu-
nity for participants to surface ideologies and resist dominant cultures, as
Rusaw (2000) and Lorenzo-Molo and Udani (2013) advocated. Specifically,
reflecting on contradictory moments—especially ones that revealed false
assumptions about unquestioned practices, irrationality in defending unjust
actions, and the role of authority in legitimating informal practices—led to out-
comes that helped employees. This process also occurred through engaging in
dialogue or interactions that paired experiences with theory-practice dispar-
ities, reclaimed taboo meanings, and engaged in resourceful sensemaking
(Carr, 2000b; Wright & Manning, 2004). In this way, leaders worked within
capitalist modes of production by questioning them, thereby creating a work-
able “critical performativity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012). In studies of contradic-
tions that masked ideologies, theory and practice were inseparable and the
interplay among them was necessary to discern opportunities and develop col-
lective action to resist the dominant culture.
Process Outcomes
Three primary process outcomes aligned with the critical lens. The first two
involved reproducing existing structures and practices and, by implication,
closing down participation, as demonstrated in the masking of ideology and
control. This outcome emphasized the material foundations of all processes

and products of human activity, whether they were economic (Cheney &
Cloud, 2006; Cloud, 2005), concrete social structures (Papa et al., 1995), or
ways of knowing and speaking (Cloud, 2005; Ogbor, 2000; Ortu, 2008;
Rusaw, 2000). A third type of process outcome that stemmed from this work
was the role of agents in enabling and constraining actions (Alvesson &
Spicer, 2012; Ann & Carr, 2010; Carr, 2000b), including discovering unex-
pected pockets of resistance within structures of domination (Rusaw, 2000).
As these outcomes suggest, the critical approach makes several contri-
butions to the work on contradictions. First, it provides a foundation for the
operations of power that often elide surface-level treatments in process-
based systems research (Mumby, 2004). Second, it calls attention to the
opacity of contradictions and urges scholars to look for the managerial
sleight-of-hand in the service of capitalist interests. Third, the emphasis on
materiality in capitalism situates contradictory processes in ways that other
perspectives fail to consider by bringing economic realities to light and high-
lighting the contradictions that they engender. Finally, it focuses on the ways
in which a critical form of praxis can resist existing power dynamics (Alvesson
& Spicer, 2012; Rusaw, 2000; Wright & Manning, 2004). In this tradition,
however, scholars often reify either control or resistance and fail to track the
dynamic relationship between them. As Mumby (2005) argued, “The impor-
tant point here is not to resolve this dialectic through some grand synthesis
but rather . . . to explore how the tensions and contradictions that inhere in
the dialectic can create possibilities for organizational change and transform-
ation” (p. 38).
Postmodern Studies
A postmodern approach examines contradictions that emerge in the ongoing
dynamics of power, control, and resistance in organizations. Although scholars
sometimes combine tenets of both critical theory and postmodernism, the two
metatheoretical traditions differ notably in their treatment of contradictions
and paradoxes. In particular, the two perspectives diverge in the central
concerns that drive the research on contradictions and in their treatments of

power and resistance. Specifically, whereas critical studies center on contradic-
tions that mask capitalism, postmodern studies focus on the processes that
construct individual identities, often in contradictory ways, through the inter-
play of power and resistance (Mumby, 2014). In other words, critical scholars
aim to emancipate organizational actors from controlling ideologies while
postmodern researchers seek to open up space for alternative understandings
through uncovering hidden assumptions.
Second, unlike critical research, which treats control and resistance as dis-
crete phenomena, postmodern work positions power and resistance as inter-

connected forces in a dialectical relationship (Mumby, 2004, 2005). In effect,
power and resistance become interdependent, inseparable, and at times indis-
tinguishable because they mutually implicate one another. They operate in a
dynamic interplay because any act of resistance is necessarily a response to
control, and control naturally implies some potential for resistance. Thus, con-
tradictory elements often emerge from the interplay of the two since power is
always accompanied by resistance (and vice-a-versa; Foucault, 1977).
Several key assumptions underlie postmodern studies on contradictions and
paradoxes. Namely, the postmodern turn is generally associated with a shift
from viewing organizations as rational, ordered entities to ones characterized
by irrationality and uncertainty, unstable power relations, and a plurality of
meanings and interpretations (Taylor, 2005). Thus, postmodernists situate
contradictions, paradoxes, and tensions as innate features of organizational
life; that is, they move away from treating contradictions as ruptures or
flaws in an organization’s fabric and view incongruent actions as the new
normal in complex, rapidly changing organizations (Trethewey & Ashcraft,
2004). These changes entail a struggle over meaning as organizational
members grapple with the dynamics of control and resistance and potential
shifts in power relations in everyday life (Zoller, 2014). Struggle in this sense
refers to competing efforts among organizational members to produce,
shape, and share meanings.
Moreover, this approach presumes that meanings are embedded in a
language system of binary oppositions (e.g., light/dark, open/closed, etc.). Ana-
lysts then unveil the contradictory and paradoxical dynamics that emerge from
actors accepting, negotiating, and resisting organizational control. In effect, a
postmodern approach treats the dialectic of power – resistance as an entry
point to the analysis of contradictions, paradoxes, and tensions15 within and
across multiple spheres.16
Postmodern studies exhibit all five dimensions of a constitutive approach to
contradictions and paradoxes, but this work, perhaps more than any other
perspective, highlights the discursive foundations and multiplicity of these con-

structs. Studies generally treat contradictions and paradoxes as rooted in dis-
course since organizational actors must manage ongoing forces of power and
resistance in their conversations, discourses, and texts.
The discursive dimension is closely linked to multiple tensions, multivocal-
ity, and multiple levels. Postmodern studies rarely focus on a single tension or
contradiction because meanings are always in flux and subject to competing
interpretations. Organizational actors also voice different meanings according
to their diverse subjectivities (e.g., hierarchical positions, socio-economic attri-
butes, etc.); hence, tensions and contradictions are often a byproduct of mul-
tiple voices that enter into organizational contexts. In many cases, these
constructs appear in and across different organizational levels and different
relationships. Scholars also make connections that link local tensions to
global contradictions and paradoxes, thus, aligning micro-discursive struggles
with macro-Discourses. This review of postmodern studies focuses on three
categories of work: (1) tensions in negotiating multiple identities; (2) dialectics
as the interplay of power and resistance; and (3) paradoxical practices in con-
stituting organizational forms (see Table 7).
Tensions in negotiating multiple identities. Postmodern studies centered

on the role of contradictions in constructing the self amid organizational
efforts to control actors’ identities. Since identities were viewed as multifaceted
and often changing, organizational members perpetually negotiated who they
were in the face of multiple contradictory views, including an organization’s
preferred identity (i.e., viewpoints, perspectives, positions, etc.; Ford, 2006).
Hence, studies in this area examined the dialectic of power and resistance as
organizational actors negotiated their identities across personal/home life, pro-
fessional/work activities, etc. (Coupland, 2001; Hatch, 1997; Holmer-Nadesan,
1996; Katila & Merilainen, 2002; McKinlay, 2010; Pratt & Foreman, 2000;
Ramarajan & Reid, 2013; Sotirin & Gottfried, 1999; Whittle, 2005; Wieland,
2010).
For example, Carlone and Larson (2006) examined a high-technology
organization that adopted the training program of “The 7 Habits of Highly
Effective People” to increase worker productivity and efficiency. Empower-
ment-related contradictions and tensions emerged as the program began to
regulate employees’ personal and professional lives. In turn, resistance from
these tensions opened up spaces for reshaping identities as employees recog-
nized the importance of a healthy personal life vis-à-vis their work activities.
Overall, this study highlighted how contradictions served as unexpected
resources for resisting organizational control.
Other studies moved beyond the individual level to examine contradictions
that emerged when multiple, divergent meanings (e.g., including values,
assumptions, and beliefs) created tensions among organizational subcultures
(Garrety, Badham, Morrigan, Rifkin, & Zanko, 2003; Lynch, 2009; Real &
Putnam, 2005; Ruud, 2000; Townsley & Geist, 2000). For example, Lynch
(2009) studied how professional chefs in hotel kitchens used humor as both
formal and informal control. Whereas supervisors employed humor to
control the chefs, chefs relied on humor to strengthen in-group identities
and cultivate both covert and overt resistance to managerial control. In
effect, tensions in the ongoing process of negotiating identities often arose in
the face of contradictory views of subjectivity. Individuals managed these ten-
sions through negotiating their roles in ways that both complied and resisted
organizational expectations. Some scholars, however, critiqued this work for

failing to theorize a conception of agency in which employees might be able
to engage in identity work and identity regulation (Newton, 1998).
Dialectics as the interplay of power and resistance. In response to this cri-

tique, research that focused on the dialectics of power and resistance treated
identity as agentic, contradictory, and contingent on ongoing processes and
interactions. These studies focused on the micro-practices that enacted both
power and resistance, often with the aim of transforming existing structures
and power relationships. That is, routine practices that enacted this dialectical
interplay led to opportunities for empowerment (Kan & Parry, 2004; Liu &
Buzzanell, 2004; Murphy, 1998; Pal & Buzzanell, 2013; Putnam, 2004; Spicer
& Sewell, 2010).
For example, Murphy (1998) uncovered ways in which flight attendants
used contradictions to challenge the airline industry’s enforcement of strict
policies regarding weight and appearance by bending the rules and engaging
in backroom conversations. Over time, these “hidden transcripts” as dialectical
interplays between control and resistance led a group of flight attendants to
take legal action, which eventually transformed institutional policies. Thus,
these ongoing micro-resistance strategies gradually shifted power relations
between the industry and flight attendants in ways that freed employees
from restrictive weight, height, and physical appearance requirements.
Yet, the dialectic between power and resistance sometimes played out in
ways that reaffirmed organizational control, as Langley and Sloan (2011)
pointed out in their review. This outcome occurred in part because micro-prac-
tices simultaneously resisted and reproduced dominant discourses, thus blur-
ring the distinction between power and resistance (Ashcraft, 2005; Fleming,
2007; Groscurth, 2011; Murphy, 2003; Palmer & Dunford, 2002; Trethewey,
2001; Wieland, 2011). As Wieland (2010) noted, since resistance occurred
through both acts of subversion and normative routines of control, the two
were often indistinguishable in practice.
To illustrate, Ashcraft (2005) studied airline pilots whose image had
changed as a result of industry-wide pressures to empower crew members
through a new system of team-based management. Ironically, pilots resisted
the new mandates while reaffirming their control through treating the require-
ments as individual choices and reframing the role of teams as how “modern
men” get people to work for them. Thus, as these studies revealed, the dialectic
of power and resistance played out in complex ways, sometimes leading to
empowerment and transformation, but at other times affirming control
through blurring the boundaries between the poles. Struggles over meaning
then often reaffirmed rather than transformed existing power relationships.
Paradoxical practices in constituting organizational forms. The interplay

between power and resistance also gave rise to paradoxical practices in

alternative organizational forms. These dynamics emerged when actors com-
pared organizations with their environments (Berglund & Werr, 2000;
Koschmann & Laster, 2011), contrasted old and new work arrangements
(Ashcraft, 2006; Fletcher, 2004; Hodgson, 2004; Hylmö & Buzzanell, 2002),
and examined contemporary discourses in light of historical ones (Aredal,
1986; Huxham & Beech, 2003; Mills, 2002; Norander & Harter, 2011). For
instance, Porsander (2000) uncovered paradoxical practices of imitating for
uniqueness (i.e., using models from other organizations to design a unique
event) and being temporarily permanent (i.e., seeking a long-term impact
while acknowledging a short-term existence) in an organization designed
to market cultural capital. Members employed metaphors to resist these
images, visualize possibilities, and link current practices to other successful
temporary organizations.
Relatedly, Ashcraft (2006) revealed paradoxical practices in a post-bureau-
cratic feminist organization as members struggled to organize in the absence of
bureaucratic controls (i.e., hierarchies, centralized authority, formal rules).
Paradoxically, members adopted formalized practices while resisting bureau-
cratic control through fostering dialogue, engaging in “ethical communication”
(i.e., frank expression, clarity of motives, listening to all voices), and privileging
informality while enacting formal and even hierarchical procedures. Overall,
research in the postmodern tradition examined tensions and paradoxes that
surfaced in the discursive struggles of negotiating multiple identities;
working out the relationships between power and resistance; and constituting
alternative organizational forms. These studies cast identities as indeterminate,
involved in ongoing struggles over meaning, and constructed through addres-
sing contradictions and paradoxes.
Process Outcomes
Postmodern studies also revealed three different types of process outcomes
aligned with responses to tensions, dialectics, and paradoxes.17 In particular,
this research highlighted how actors engaged in discursive activities that
opened up new possibilities for participation, such as ethical communication
(Ashcraft, 2006), hidden transcripts (Murphy, 1998), metaphors and myths

(Aredal, 1986; Berglund & Werr, 2000; Porsander, 2000; Wasson, 2004),
irony and humor (Hatch, 1997; Lynch, 2009), and reflexive practice
(Huxham & Beech, 2003; Johnson & Duberley, 2003; Norander & Harter,
2011; Whittle, Mueller, & Mangan, 2008). These strategies fostered productive
dialogue among organizational actors, which allowed them to embrace mul-
tiple meanings in the midst of contradictions and paradoxes.
In contrast, studies also indicated how discursive activities closed off partici-
pation or silenced particular meanings and dialogues (Christensen, Morsing, &
Thyssen, 2015; Clair, 1997; Fletcher, 2004; Fyke & Buzzanell, 2013; O’Connor,
1995; Stohl & Cheney, 2001). For example, Fyke and Buzzanell’s (2013)
research uncovered the paradoxical dynamics of training leaders to consider
multiple perspectives and meanings while developing the skills of “conscious
capitalism.” Attempts to open up participation then paradoxically closed off
possibilities to create dialogue and to recognize the contradictions between
mindfulness and capitalism.
Postmodern work also disclosed how the dynamics of power and resistance
might transform organizational structures and/or reproduce the status quo. In
particular, several investigations identified resistance strategies that trans-
formed undesirable organizational structures into different realities (Kan &
Parry, 2004; Liu & Buzzanell, 2004; MacKenzie, 2008; Murphy, 1998, 2003;
Pal & Buzzanell, 2013; Putnam, 2004; Spicer & Sewell, 2010), especially
through simultaneously resisting and reproducing existing structures and
dominant narratives (Denis, Dompierre, Langley, & Rouleau, 2011; Groscurth,
2011; Markham, 1996; McClellan, 2011; Trethewey, 2001). Taken together, this
work revealed both reproduction and transformation as process outcomes,
suggesting that the dynamics of power and resistance were closely tied to the
dialectic of stability and change.
In summary, the postmodern approach makes several contributions to the
work on contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. First, it foregrounds the dia-
lectic of power and resistance through uncovering how contradictory forces
and resultant tensions emanate from their dynamic interplay. Second, it privi-
leges discourse as a central driver of these constructs since tensions not only
emerge out of language and social interactions but also enter into the ways
that social interactions enable and constrain organizational actors, sometimes
simultaneously. Third, postmodern studies underscore the indeterminate
nature of contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes, as organization members
negotiate competing identities at multiple levels in the midst of the ongoing
dynamics of power and resistance.
Finally, this work shows how the shifting of power relationships opens up
possibilities for organizational actors to reorient contradictions in ways that
grant them agency. In many cases, this process involves creating new meanings
that allow actors autonomy and freedom in constructing their identities and
creating control over their work lives. Yet, scholars who work within this
metatheoretical tradition often place undue emphasis on discourse and
neglect the material world that mediates and constrains the symbolic. Research
then needs more attention to the objects, bodies, spaces, and places in which
discourse interfaces with materiality in negotiating identities and shaping
organizational forms (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2014).
Relational Dialectics Studies

Although closely related to postmodern studies, relational dialectics has a
strong interdisciplinary presence, but it is not well-known in management
studies on dialectics and paradoxes.18 This lens is based on the writings of
Russian theorist Bakhtin (1981) whose work on language and literature is
known as dialogism. Like the critical theorists and postmodernists, Bakhtin
believed that language makes all of us into cultural products, is constitutive
of experience, and is the locus in which the simultaneity of difference is realized
(Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
Thus, discourse is a central feature of relational dialectics and meanings
grow out of opposing or contradictory discourses. In this metatheoretical tra-
dition, discourse refers to a system of meanings that are never fixed, but always
in play. Specifically, Bakhtin (1981) stresses the ways in which language used in
the present moment references the past and anticipates a future. Interactional
moments thus layer and interweave to create a confluence of meaning that
communicators steadily construct. As such, this work parallels the postmodern
lens in assumptions about discourse and the indeterminacy of meanings.
However, relational dialectics focuses on the interplay among tensions that
become centered and thus create unity (centripetal forces) and those that are
marginalized and form division (centrifugal forces; Baxter & Montgomery,
1996). Power is fluid, emergent, and emanating from discursive competitions
that layer and interweave over time.
Studies that employ relational dialectics focus on the interplay of opposing
forces, thus contradiction is the modus operandi of this work (Baxter & Mon-
tgomery, 1996). Relational dialectics embraces four dimensions of the consti-
tutive view. First, it adopts a discourse lens; that is, it examines the ways that
dialectics and tensions emerge in a clash of discourses over meaning.
Second, discourses are grounded socio-historically in meaning systems rooted
in time and history (Collier, 2009; Harter, 2004; Iedema, Degeling, Braithwaite,
& White, 2004; Jenkins & Dillon, 2012; Thatcher, 2011).
Third, relational dialectics treats tensions as developmental in that the

meanings ascribed to felt tensions grows out of the interplay of discourses
that are circulating at a given moment (Baxter, 2011). This view of dialectics
as grounded in struggles over meaning distinguishes it from Hegel’s (1969)
notions of resolving contradictions through fixing meaning in synthesis.
Fourth, this perspective embraces multiple voices, tensions, and levels. Based
on Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of heteroglossia (i.e., the presence of two or
more voices), the work on relational dialectics incorporates multiple and com-
peting viewpoints. In addition, this perspective argues that tensions rarely
travel alone; rather they come in multiples that are capable of forming knots
or becoming interwoven in bundles (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery,
1996). Finally, this approach focuses on the ways that organizational actors
manage dialectics across multiple individual and community levels.
Research that embraces relational dialectics covers a remarkably wide range
of organizational topics (e.g., leadership, community building, health care
management, collaboration, organizational change, racial disparity, sexual har-
assment, and technology use).19 These articles form two clusters that focus on:
(1) identifying and managing dialectics and (2) examining multiple tensions
and voices (see Table 7).
Identifying and managing dialectics. Studies of relational dialectics often

focused on identifying tensions and ways that organizational members
managed or coped with them. For example, Gibbs (2009) found three main
tensions (i.e., autonomy-connectedness; inclusion-exclusion; and empower-
ment-disempowerment) that emerged among participants who worked in
virtual teams. Importantly, these tensions emanated from contradictions and
paradoxical role enactments that occurred in group, interteam, and group-
organizational interactions. Whereas managers demonstrated a facility to
transcend the tensions, lower-level foreign workers experienced them as con-
straining and disempowering. Tensions were also linked to communication
styles and management strategies of emergency room physicians, particularly
in contradictions that occurred between efficiency versus rapport with patients
and getting the job done versus promoting patient comprehension of problems
(Dean & Oetzel, 2014). Specifically, physicians routinely chose efficiency over
rapport and getting the job done versus fostering patient understanding of
medical issues.
Other studies linked dialectics to the development of paradoxes (McGuire,
2006). In particular, Putnam, Myers, and Gailliard (2014) examined the work-
place flexibility literature to identify the tensions that employees, managers,
and organizations faced in developing and implementing work-life initiatives.
Three primary dialectics (i.e., variable-fixed arrangements, supportive-unsup-
portive work climates, and equitable-inequitable policy implementations) tied
to an overarching paradox of autonomy-control.
Examining multiple tensions and voices. Other studies examined the ways
that contradictions became interwoven with each other (Driskill et al., 2012;
Iedema et al., 2004) or formed knots (Norton & Sadler, 2006; Sheep et al., in
press; Sheep & Fairhurst, 2015). To illustrate, Norton and Sadler (2006) exam-
ined the knotted tensions that arose in a community planning process wrought
by an ideological conflict, different views regarding traditional practices, and
the introduction of outsiders who highlighted old versus new ways of organiz-
ing. Similarly, in their study of innovation in the print industry, Sheep et al. (in
press) found that actors discursively constructed multiple tensions that cast
exploration-exploitation activities into Gordian entanglements and set up

logics to justify either innovative action or inaction as ways of managing the
tensions.
In addition to analyzing multiple tensions, several studies focused on multi-
vocality (Beech, MacPhail, & Coupland, 2009; Iedema et al., 2004; Zorn et al.,
2014). Specifically, Iedema et al. (2004) examined the ways that heteroglossia
manifested itself for physician-managers whose identities emerged at the
boundaries of clashing medical, managerial, and interpersonal discourses. Mul-
tivocality, in effect, became a way to keep incommensurate positions in play.
Also, with a focus on multiple voices, Beech et al. (2009) analyzed the tensions
in stories of organizational change to decipher whether actors included mul-
tiple interpretations of events, characters, plots, or morals. They concluded
that the appearance of dialogue in change initiatives might actually be self-
sealing because actors’ narratives failed to engage alternative readings.
Also in an organizational change setting, Barge and Little (2002) employed
relational dialectics to interrogate the conversational sensibilities of multivocal-
ity. They contended that everyday interactions were inherently dialogical; thus,
dialogue should not be relegated to only problematic conversations. Thus, the
template in which scholars specified relational dialectics and ways of managing
them yielded insights regarding multiple and knotted tensions, tensions that
led to paradoxes, and the role of multiple voices in this process. However,
research in this tradition often relied too heavily on interview data and individ-
ual actors’ depictions of social interactions rather than tracking these actions in
a developmental way.
Process Outcomes
Studies that embraced relational dialectics reported three types of process out-
comes. Given the focus of this tradition on dialogue, the most logical process
outcome was the way that tensions opened up or closed off participation. For
example, studies that identified dialectics of closeness-distance (McGuire,
2006; McNamee & Peterson, 2014); impartiality-favoritism (Sias et al., 2004);
inclusion-exclusion (Barge et al., 2008); individual-collective (Erhardt &
Gibbs, 2014; Lewis et al., 2010); diversity-unity (Kellett, 1999); and
centralized-decentralized (Beech, Burns, de Caestecker, MacIntosh, &

MacLean, 2004) either privileged monologue or dialogue, depending on how
actors managed them.
A second process outcome focused on the way that tensions enabled or con-
strained actions. For example, studies of such dialectics as stability-change
(Medved et al., 2001); autonomy-connectedness (Gibbs, 2009); empower-
ment-disempowerment (Gibbs, 2009; Pitts et al., 2009); standardized-idiosyn-
cratic practice; vague-detailed language use; withholding-disclosing
alternatives (Olufowote, 2011); and risk-control (Zorn et al., 2014) demon-
strated how agency constrained or enabled action.

A third process outcome, transforming or reproducing existing structures
and practices, was less prevalent in the relational dialectics literature. Jenkins
and Dillon’s (2012) study of a faith-based community, however, examined
the ways in which participants reproduced a racially oppressive structure
through managing the tensions of individual-community, valuation-devalua-
tion, and inclusion-exclusion. Similarly, Norton and Sadler’s (2006) study of
a rural community’s planning process demonstrated how knotted tensions
reproduced the status quo in process outcomes.
To summarize, the literature on relational dialectics makes a number of
contributions to the study of organizational paradoxes. First, its discursive
orientation captures the human experience of contradictions and the need to
create meanings in and around them. Such an approach opens new venues
for situating language in paradox studies, but often with a bias for individual
actors’ views of the world. Second, the dimension of multivocality formalizes
the need to consider multiple readings of “the paradoxical situation here and
now,” including incorporating voices of the past and future. Multiple voices
not only foster dialectical tensions but also introduce opportunities for reflex-
ivity, managing difference, and clarifying dialogic intentions. Third, relational
dialectics also emphasizes the dynamic interplay between contradictory poles, a
unique contribution that departs from Hegelian thinking about dialectics. This
dynamic underscores the developmental nature of dialectical systems with
their own unique opportunities for reflexivity.
Finally, as a fourth contribution, this perspective incorporates not just co-
occurring tensions, but multiple, interrelated and even knotted ones. The prac-
tice of relying on actors to identify their own knotted circumstances is an
important step in capturing the complexity of turbulent paradoxical environ-
ments (Sheep et al., in press). Contributions notwithstanding, relational dialec-
tics’ research is prone to developing inventories of tensions, ones that do not
necessarily hang together in coherent or overarching ways. This practice
makes it difficult to synthesize literature, compare research findings, and
build theory, particular on the myriad of options for managing tensions.
These five metatheoretical traditions embrace multiple dimensions of the
constitutive view, ones that underscore the importance of an alternative
approach to the study of paradox. In particular, they highlight different ways

that contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes come into being through dis-
course and social interactions, draw from socio-historical conditions, co-
exist with multiple tensions across diverse organizational levels, and signal
struggles for meaning among multiple actors or groups. They show how an
actor’s awareness of contradictions requires felt experience of tensions, self-
monitoring of cues, recognition of clashes, and reflexivity regarding the role
of power as well as ways of moving from individual to collective consciousness.
These dimensions, particularly praxis, are closely tied to ways of responding
to and managing paradoxical situations. Responses refer to individual and

organizational choices to act on, move forward, and embrace contradictions.
The next section reviews and distills an array of strategies for reacting to
and managing contradictory and paradoxical situations. Importantly, these
approaches are not aligned with any one metatheoretical tradition and a
given study might report multiple strategies that differ across organizational
members or units.
Responding to and Managing Paradoxical Situations

The literature from these five metatheoretical traditions reveals a myriad of
individual and organizational approaches to coping with and managing ten-
sions. Even though scholars often adopt different names for these approaches
or conflate terms and definitions, the categories that emerge from the literature
can be classified roughly as either-or, both-and, and more than (Janssens &
Steyaert, 1999; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Seo et al., 2004; Smith, 2014;
Tracy, 2004—see Table 8). The first two categories accent individual choices
while the third one centers on the individual-organizational interface in
responding to contradictions.
Either-Or Responses
Either-or approaches treat contradictory poles as distinct phenomena that
function independent of each other and fit into three broad areas: (1) defensive
reactions and mechanisms, (2) selection or privileging of one pole, and (3) sep-
aration or segmentation.
Defensive reactions and mechanisms. Defensive reactions and mechanisms

are strategies that individuals use to deny the existence of contradictions, dia-
lectics, and paradoxes (Smith & Berg, 1987; Vince & Broussine, 1996). Lewis
(2000) sets forth six defensive reactions, such as splitting elements (severing
the contradictions), projecting (shifting anxiety to a third person), repressing
(ignoring or denying oppositional pulls), regression (moving to more secure
options), reaction forming (cultivating an oppositional action or belief), and
ambivalence (responding with a lukewarm reaction). Withdrawal, as an

extreme type of repression, refers to leaving the scene, psychologically or phys-
ically (Tracy, 2004). Organizational members often rely on defensive mechan-
isms when they feel trapped in self-reinforcing cycles, especially when
contradictions cross multiple organizational levels (Apker, 2004; Jarzabkowski
et al., 2013; Jian, 2007b; Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010; Sherblom et al., 2002;
Tracy, 2004). Employing defensive mechanisms often fosters individual
burnout, paranoia, and loss of organizational vitality.
Selection. Selection refers to choosing one pole and minimizing or ignor-

ing the other (Seo et al., 2004). In studies on role identity, selecting one pole
often results in neglecting duties linked to effective job performance (Apker
et al., 2005; Olufowote, 2011; Tracy, 2004) or emphasizing particular role func-
tions to meet contextual constraints and time pressures (Dean & Oetzel, 2014).
Selection also surfaces as an option for resisting control, for example, through
covert actions that ignore managerial mandates during organizational change
(Jian, 2007a; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2013) and in selecting cooperation over
competition or short term needs over long term effects in mergers and acqui-
sitions (Das & Kumar, 2010; Das & Teng, 2000).
Separation. A third type of either-or response separates tensions through

segmenting them, splitting the two, and/or engaging in source splitting (Lewis,
2000; Seo et al., 2004). In source splitting, organizational members divide the
tensions and assign them to different people or units. The literature suggests
that dividing duties, topics, and job activities serves to de-couple interdepen-
dent poles in ways that often increase rather than reduce role conflict
(Apker et al., 2005; Gibbs, 2009; Tracy, 2004). At the organizational level, seg-
menting opposites in different structural arrangements, times, or organiz-
ational functions (Smith & Tushman, 2005), often fuels new tensions
(Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; McKinley & Scherer, 2000), increases power imbal-
ances (Gibbs, 2009; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), and eventually privileges one
pole over the other (Gebert et al., 2010).
Overall, either-or approaches to contradictions and paradoxes offer organ-
izational members coping mechanisms and ways to meet temporal or contex-
tual constraints, yet they often exacerbate stress (Considine & Miller, 2010;
Hopson & Orbe, 2007), result in the loss of organizational synergy (Bledow
et al., 2009), and fuel vicious cycles (Lewis, 2000; Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Both-And Responses
Both-and responses differ from either-or approaches through treating oppo-
sites as inseparable and interdependent (Smith & Lewis, 2011). In this category,
organizational members avoid segmenting opposites or privileging one pole
over the other. The literature reveals three types of both-and approaches: (1)
paradoxical thinking, (2) vacillation or spiraling inversion, and (3) integration
and balance.
Paradoxical thinking. Developing paradoxical thinking focuses on

increasing cognitive abilities to recognize opposites, question and reflect on
them, and shift mental sets (Clarke, 1998; Good & Michel, 2013). Since para-
doxical thinking aims to make latent tensions clear and explicit, research
suggests that managers who question and reflect upon shifting paradoxes are
more effective in dealing with contradictory situations (Lüscher & Lewis,

2008). Since paradoxical thinking focuses on individual abilities, the transfer
of these skills to complex, dynamic organizational circumstances, however,
depends on a number of factors and institutional constraints (Smith &
Lewis, 2011).
Vacillation or spiraling inversion. Vacillation focuses on shifting back and

forth between the poles at different times or in different contexts (Poole & Van
de Ven, 1989). It occurs through accentuating distinctions between the poles
and then bringing them back together or through enacting a spiraling inversion
(i.e., a continual oscillation between the poles; Considine & Miller, 2010). For
example, in studies of flexible work arrangements, organizational members
often manage tensions between fixed versus variable hours through relying
on fixed schedules in periods of high task demand and using flexible schedules
for low peak times (Putnam et al., 2014).
Vacillation is generally effective in holding both poles together, meeting
antithetical goals, and iterating between opposites. Yet, it can easily disintegrate
into separation, as occurred in managing innovation through moving back and
forth between exploration and exploitation (Smith, 2014) or in oscillating
between medical and business missions in implementing a telehealth initiative
(Cho et al., 2007).
Integration and balance. Whereas vacillation moves back and forth

between the poles, integration seeks a compromise or a middle-of-the-road
approach, sometimes through a forced merger between the opposites (Seo
et al., 2004). For example, some organizations use integration tactics to
implement maternity leaves through granting an extended leave to a parent
and then requiring him or her to be on call for work emergencies (Buzzanell
& Liu, 2005, 2007), and other studies show how integration stems from creat-
ing a nexus that merges contradictions across organizational levels (Marcus &
Geffen, 1998).
Similar to integration, balance searches for ways to embrace both poles
through accepting the contradiction, working through the tensions, meeting
competing demands, and finding an equilibrium point (Smith & Lewis,
2011). Balance and equilibrium, however, grow out of steady state systems
Table 8 Responding to Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes

Categories of Responses Definitions and Distinctive Features Enacting Responses
I. Either-Or Approaches
Defensive Mechanisms . Treats opposite tensions as independent . Projecting—shifting anxiety to a third person

Lewis (2000) . Focuses on coping with paradox . Repressing—ignoring or denying tensions
Vince and Broussine (1996) . Efforts to leave the scene, subvert tensions . Withdrawal– physical and/or psychological
Smith and Berg (1987) . Often develops into negative reinforcing cycles absence
. Fosters individual burnout and paranoia . Regression—moving to more secure options
. Leads to loss of organizational vitality . Reaction forming—cultivating the opposite
action
. Ambivalence—lukewarm response
Selection . Focuses on coping with paradox, neutralizes tensions . Choosing one pole over the other
Seo et al. (2004) . Common response for time pressures and contextual . Favoring or privileging one pole
constraints
. Loses synergy in the tensions between the poles
Separation . Source splitting—dividing tensions and assigning them to . De-coupling opposites through structural,
Baxter and Montgomery different people or units temporal, or functional separation
(1996) . Keeping poles separate and independent . Structural ambidexterity
Poole and Van de Ven . Focuses on acceptance and living with paradox
(1989) . Creates power imbalances, increases stress, and negative
Seo et al. (2004) reactions
. Closes off options and opportunities; loss of synergy
†
Continued
61
Table 8 (Continued)
62
†
II. Both-And Approaches
Paradoxical Thinking . Increasing cognitive abilities to recognize and reflect on . Seeking valued differences between poles
Smith and Lewis (2011) paradoxes . Reducing anxiety and fear
. Aims to expose latent tensions
. Focuses on fostering comfort and openness to paradoxes
. Targets individual abilities
Vacillation/Spiraling . Oscillating between opposite poles . Incremental or radical shift between poles at
Inversion . Focusing on segmenting then connecting poles different times
Baxter and Montgomery . Can disintegrate into separation . Vacillating between phases and sequences
(1996) . Can lead to spiraling inversion or a perpetual oscillation
Seo et al. (2004) between poles without moving forward
Poole and Van de Ven
(1989)
Integration and Balance . Compromises tensions through a forced merger . Develops a middle ground between the poles
Baxter and Montgomery . Casts opposite poles in a zero-sum relationship . Seeks balance or an equilibrium point
(1996) . Brings poles together but neutralizes tensions . Aligns with steady state systems and equilibrium
Seo et al. (2004) . Focuses on meeting competing demands models
Smith and Lewis (2011) . Often results in temporary or unstable responses
. Not necessarily effective for complex systems
Continued
Table 8 (Continued)
III. More-Than Approaches

Reframing and . Uses the dynamic interplay between opposites to form . Situating opposites in a new relationship
Transcendence a new whole or a novel perspective . Developing discourses of transcendence
Bartunek (1988) . In reframing, opposing forces become encompassed inside . Searching for novel and creative responses
Ford and Backoff (1988) each other to form a new whole
Poole and Van de Ven . In transcending, opposing forces shift outside
(1989) boundaries to different levels of meaning
Westenholz (1993) . May trigger unintended consequences
Janssens and Steyaert (1999)
Seo et al. (2004)
Connection, Third Spaces, . Focuses on the dynamic interplay of opposites; . Locating a discursive site to engage paradox and
and Dialogue seeks energy from tensions contradiction
. Develops new space or zone of ambiguity . Develops collaborative dialogue among
Janssens and Steyaert (1999)
. Treats opposites as equally valued, interdependent and stakeholders
Barge (2006)
intertwined with each other . Juxtaposes opposites in conversation
. Engages in multi-stakeholder learning . Engages multiple voices to privilege differences
. Requires time, skill, and expertise
Reflective Practice and . Using tensions to open meanings and develop options . Engaging in trial and error exploration
Serious Playfulness . Engaging in purposeful action driven by emotions . Enacts reflective positioning
Huxham and Beech (2003) rather than rational arguments . Engages in humor, irony, and play
Barge et al. (2008) . Challenges normal boundaries
63 †
that may no longer parallel fast-paced, dynamic organizations; hence, scholars

may need to shift to adaptive systems that exist on the “edge of chaos,” operate
far from equilibrium, and embrace complexity (Bouchikhi, 1998; Smith &
Graetz, 2006a). Individuals also struggle to balance tensions in their personal
lives, as the work-life literature has shown (Kirby & Krone, 2002). In trying
to reach this balance point, however, responses to opposite poles often
become diluted and unstable (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
In comparison with either-or responses, both-and approaches aid in devel-
oping awareness of paradoxes, providing quick reactions in crisis situations,
and offering temporary actions for meeting immediate needs. On the down
side, vacillation can disintegrate into either-or choices; integration can resur-
face contradictions (Seo et al., 2004); and balance embodies assumptions
about equilibrium that may not be easily attainable or desirable. Thus, although
both-and approaches are efficient in the short-term, they are not necessarily an
effective long-term strategy for managing organizational paradoxes. The issue
in responding to contradictions, then, may not be one of resolving, coping, or
even managing them, but rather one of finding ways to seek energy from ten-
sions and sustain the ongoing interplay between opposites (Clegg, Cunha, &
Cunha, 2002; Huxham & Beech, 2003; Janssens & Steyaert, 1999).
More-Than Responses
A third major approach to addressing paradoxes focuses on connecting oppo-
sitional pairs, moving outside of them, or situating them in a new relationship.
Smith (2014) and Lewis and Smith (2014) refer to this approach as accommo-
dating both poles through developing a novel, creative synergy that character-
izes “Janusian thinking” (Rothenberg, 1979). Drawing from the literature, this
category consists of three clusters: (1) reframing and transcendence (Abdallah
et al., 2011; Bartunek, 1988; Ford & Backoff, 1988), (2) connecting, third
spaces, and dialogue (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999; Seo et al., 2004), and (3) reflec-
tive practice and serious play (Huxham & Beech, 2003).
Reframing and transcendence. Reframing occurs when parties situate

opposites in a new reformulated whole or a novel relationship so that the
poles are no longer pitted against each other (Bartunek, 1988; Lewis, 2000;
Seo et al., 2004). Examples of reframing in this literature include flight attend-
ants who used hidden transcripts to resist organizational restrictions (Murphy,
1998), telecommuters who recast ICTs to enhance their flexibility in managing
the connectivity paradox (Leonardi et al., 2010), and organizations that made
flexible work arrangements an entitlement of employment rather than part of a
benefit package (Putnam et al., 2014). Other studies cast reframing as a type of
second-order change (Bartunek, 1984, 1988) or as redefinition through organ-
izational improvisation (Goodier & Eisenberg, 2006).
In a similar way, transcendence positions opposites in a novel relationship to

each other by moving outside of a paradoxical system to a new level of meaning
or by expanding the boundaries of an organization’s context (Ford & Backoff,
1988). Examples of transcendence include the coat-tailing practices that
members used to transgress contradictions in an open source community
(Hemetsberger & Reinhardt, 2009), managers’ responses to multilayered ten-
sions in virtual teams (Gibbs, 2009), and the development of a creative transfer
policy to protect jobs and reduce company costs in a revenue generation
program (Abdallah et al., 2011). Reframing and transcendence, although crea-
tive, can trigger unintended consequences through leading to new contradic-

tions or to a reemergence of opposing demands over time (Jian, 2007b).
Connection, third spaces, and dialogue. Connection refers to the interactive

practices that engage opposites in an ongoing dynamic interplay (Seo et al.,
2004). For the most part, the postmodern and relational dialectics literatures
embrace this approach, but it also appears in specific recommendations,
such as sustaining the negotiation of tensions (Liu & Buzzanell, 2004;
Putnam, 2004), engaging in ongoing interactions between forces that enable
and those that constrain organizations (Sutherland & Smith, 2011), keeping
incommensurate positions in play (Iedema et al., 2004), and bridging mindful-
ness and mindlessness in an unfolding process over time (Carlo et al., 2012).
Overall, connection aims to create third spaces for engaging paradox and
contradiction. A third space is a liminal and performative site of disruption,
invention, and enunciation that enables organizational members to live with
paradox (Janssens & Steyaert, 1999). It could come in the form of a new
space or a personal zone of ambiguity during a merger (Howard & Geist,
1995), a way of opening opportunities to reshape identities (Carlone &
Larson, 2006), a “thirdness” linked to novel approaches that mediate activity
systems (Engeström & Sannino, 2011), or spaces for creativity that reside
between opposites (Berglund & Werr, 2000).
Third spaces offer a sanctuary for dialogue or communicative practices that
seek energy from tensions, engage in ongoing interplay between opposites, and
keep paradoxes open. In this literature, dialogue surfaces as a particular type of
forum in which stakeholders treat opposite poles as equally valued and form
co-developed meanings among people, situations, and events. Examples of dia-
logic activities include intervention sessions among stakeholders involved in
change efforts (Bartunek, 1984; Engeström & Sannino, 2011; Kellett, 1999;
Kerosuo, 2011; Whittle et al., 2008), policy deliberation processes (Canary,
2010a); multi-stakeholder learning sessions (Barge, 2006; Calton & Payne,
2003); resourceful sensemaking to develop intersubjective meanings from the
interplay of opposites (Wright & Manning, 2004); and connecting theory
with practice through linking opposites (Carr, 2000b). Dialogic organizational
development has also become a specific focus in OD, one aimed at addressing
wicked, paradoxical problems (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, 2015). Yet, engaging in
dialogue requires time and skill that is often difficult for organizational
members, particularly without the aid of third parties.
Reflexive practice and serious playfulness. Similar to dialogue, practice-

oriented theorists draw on praxis as a way of holding opposite poles together
through becoming aware of dualities, using tensions for self and relational
reflexivity, developing bounded mutuality, and engaging in reflexive position-
ing (Huxham & Beech, 2003; Johnson & Duberley, 2003; Norander & Harter,
2011). As an example, Barge et al. (2008) employed reflective practice to engage

tensions between sustaining tribal heritage and fostering economic develop-
ment in a planned change initiative between members of Native American uni-
versities who were adopting new information technologies. The concept of
serious playfulness is a type of reflective practice driven by emotional
expression and experimentation rather than rational arguments. It engages
contradictions by adhering to and disrupting the rules, playing with multiple
meanings, and challenging normal boundaries (Beech et al., 2004; Lüscher
et al., 2006). For some scholars, engaging in humor is a type of serious playful-
ness in which organizational members use irony and comic relief to surface
tensions, expose contradictions, enact cynicism, and develop reflective practice
(Hatch, 1997; Hatch & Ehrlich, 1993; Hopson & Orbe, 2007; Jarzabkowski &
Lê, in press; Lynch, 2009; Martin, 2004).
More-than strategies embrace a theory of tensions that differs epistemolo-
gically from either-or or both-and responses that focus on managing and
coping with contradictions. Specifically, this theory aims to open up rather
than close off meanings and uses tensions to enhance a discursive conscious-
ness of paradoxical situations. Even though more-than responses are
complex and less familiar than both-and options, they preserve the dynamic
interplay between opposites, aim to cultivate a variety of responses, and
situate contradictions at both individual and collective levels. Thus, rather
than resolving, accommodating, or meeting competing needs, more-than
approaches employ performative practices to engage tensions and avoid pre-
mature closure of options.
Discussion and Future Directions

In management circles, the work on dynamic equilibrium models (Lewis, 2000;
Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Lewis, 2011) has been immensely successful in
sustaining the research on organizational paradoxes. While we laud this effort,
our concern is that paradox theory may have reached a normative status. For
scholars who believe that organizational studies should become focused and
paradigmatic to survive (Pfeffer, 1993), this state may not be a problem. For
others, however, the growth of a field requires developing it from within as
well as outside its boundaries. Thus, we articulate a constitutive approach to the

study of paradox by drawing on disciplinary as well as interdisciplinary
literatures.
Contributions of a Constitutive Lens

This article sets forth the constitutive lens as an alternative approach to the
study of organizational paradoxes. As such, it grounds the origins, ongoing
development, and responses to contradictions in actions and social inter-
actions. Importantly, discourse as constellations of language, logics, and texts

become rooted in routine social interactions and processes of organizing. As
the work on process studies and relational dialectics illustrate (Carlo et al.,
2012; Medved et al., 2001), organizational contradictions infuse everyday dis-
courses in ways that are often overlooked in the research on large-scale systems
(Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Postmodern and relational dialectics’ researchers,
in turn, highlight clashing discourses that both enact and respond to paradoxes
(e.g., through habitual forms of argument, terminology, story themes, meta-
phors, humor, and patterned interactions). Therefore, a constitutive lens pro-
vides scholars and practitioners with ways to analyze and understand
contradictions by focusing on the clashes of discourses as they surface in every-
day practices.
The developmental focus of contradictions underscores the dynamic prop-
erties of social interactions through stressing live actions in the present
moment. This feature is pivotal to identifying how paradoxes and responses
to them become situated in systems operations through the ways that contra-
dictions build on and amplify each other in sequential activities and practices
(Hernes, 2014; Langley et al., 2013). These routine practices are also linked to
socio-historical eras that lay the ground for contradictions; that is, contradic-
tions and paradoxes are often embedded in past practices that actors draw
on to construct current and future actions. These past actions serve as over-
arching discourses (i.e., big D) that set the stage for clashes over meaning.
As studies of activity systems illustrate, contradictions typically surface in epi-
sodes that cross old and new systems, societal and organizational interfaces,
and central and peripheral activities (Canary, 2010a; Groleau et al., 2011; Pre-
nkert, 2006). Grounding studies of paradox in socio-historical conditions pro-
vides researchers with ways to identify and track contradictions over time, to
analyze the patterns of tensions that exert force, and to situate them in the dia-
lectics of power and resistance (Norton, 2009) and the material and symbolic
(Reed, 2005).
The dimension of multiples provides another key to tracking how tensions
evolve from ongoing everyday interactions into the operations of complex
systems. Even though in a complex environment tensions exist at multiple
societal and organizational levels, organizational actors recognize and
appropriate them differently in accordance with their own circumstances. A

constitutive approach counters the conventional wisdom that actors typically
reduce complex sets of tensions to simple dualities (Lewis, 2000). Instead,
this approach embraces multiple tensions, levels, and voices as the basis for
tracking contradictions and analyzing their complexities. Actors’ “lay ontolo-
gies” (Calori, 2002), in particular, are an important source for how multiple
tensions surface across levels and form identities and actions that stretch
with elasticity or break with irreconcilability (Kreiner, Hollensbe, Sheep,
Smith, & Kataria, 2015).
Finally, a constitutive approach makes praxis the fundamental objective in

helping actors respond effectively to paradoxes (Howard & Geist, 1995). Praxis,
however, is not simply recognizing that tensions exist; rather it focuses on
developing a discursive consciousness—a type of awareness in which actors
can formulate in thought and words what is happening and reflect on why
and how it occurs. Thus, the constitutive view aims to help actors become
self-monitors, reflect on their experiences in paradoxical situations, recognize
power struggles, and move from individual to collective consciousness.
Through moving discourse out of the shadows of paradox research into the
foreground, organizational actors can engage contradictory forces through
reflexivity and dialogic practices (Barge et al., 2008).
To summarize, discourse emerges as a central feature in a constitutive
approach to the study of organizational contradictions and paradoxes. Its
entailments include a focus on developmental actions and socio-historical
orientations; a concern for multiple tensions, levels, and voices; and an empha-
sis on praxis. It is compatible with paradox theory, but it digs deep into the
micro-foundations of contradiction with an arguably muscular view of
language and social interaction, a concern for the deep-seated effects of
power, and a focus on ways to enhance reflexivity.
This review makes four additional contributions. First, we differentiate
among key constructs—tensions, dualisms/duality, contradiction, dialectics,
and paradoxes—and show how scholars converge or diverge in employing
these terms. We urge researchers to sharpen their definitions, ground their
work in metatheories, focus on relationships among constructs, and avoid
the conceptual malaise that often surfaces in the organizational literature. As
this review illustrates, each metatheorical tradition highlights particular con-
structs and grounds them in ontological assumptions. Thus, in selecting a par-
ticular construct, scholars need to link it to a metatheoretical origin. In effect,
one way to avoid the conceptual malaise that often exists in this work is to
ground constructs in theoretical and metatheoretical roots. Importantly,
these constructs are interrelated; hence, researchers need to focus on contradic-
tions as the source and substance of paradoxes and dialectics.
Second, this essay recognizes the contributions of multiple metatheories to
the study of paradox. Metatheory refers to research traditions or paradigms
that often embrace radically different assumptions about organizational reality

(Schultz & Hatch, 1996). These traditions are not necessarily incommensurate,
but scholars need to respect their distinctive features and avoid meshing logi-
cally inconsistent claims through a synthesis or integration of disparate
assumptions (Deetz, 1996).
So rather than striving for a unified or coherent metatheory, we suggest that
scholars develop a framework or a metaperspective of organizational paradox
aimed at opening up conceptual spaces in which multiple traditions can coexist
and enter into dialogue with each other. This metaperspective could surface
through working at the borders or periphery between paradigms (Schultz &

Hatch, 1996). For example, several structuration and relational dialectic
studies included in this review operate at the boundaries of multiple paradigms
and contribute to such a framework (see for example, Gibbs, 2009; Iedema
et al., 2004; Leonardi et al., 2010). Another way to develop a metaperspective
is to move back and forth across traditions, holding multiple views in
tension, and uncovering similarities and differences. Specifically, comparing
and contrasting dimensions of the constitutive lens across metatheories rep-
resents a form of paradigm interplay. Continued efforts to cross, bridge, and
move back and forth between traditions, while preserving the unique assump-
tive ground of different paradigms, offers scholars ways to build a metaperspec-
tive on organizational contradiction and paradox.
Third, we identify five types of process outcomes (i.e., vicious and/or virtu-
ous cycles; double binds and paralysis; unintended and/or unanticipated con-
sequences; enabling and/or constraining actions; opening up and/or closing off
participation; and transforming or reproducing existing practices, structures,
and systems). This typology moves beyond positive and negative consequences
of paradoxes (e.g., generating creativity, developing ambivalence, etc.) to adopt
a wide range of organizational processes as the basis for examining contradic-
tions and tensions.
Fourth, we move beyond either-or and both-and approaches for responding
to tensions through setting forth a typology grounded in more-than reactions.
These approaches extend the work of paradox scholars to incorporate
responses aimed at sustaining the dynamic interplay among opposites. In
addition to reframing and transcending opposites, we highlight ways to
connect tensions through developing third spaces, engaging in dialogue, foster-
ing reflective practices, and experimenting with serious playfulness.
Methods
To examine contradictions and paradoxes, constitutive scholars often use
grounded theory, particularly in deciphering content themes that emerge in
interviews and mixed-method studies (Charmaz, 2014; Kirby & Krone, 2002;
Liu & Buzzanell, 2004). Other investigators employ ethnographic and case
study approaches to dig deeply into the dynamics of organizational dialectics

and paradoxes as they evolve over time (Gibbs, 2009; Kramer, 2004; Tracy,
2004; Yin, 2013). Yet, researchers who embrace a constitutive approach typi-
cally combine these approaches with the use of discourse analysis.
Discourse methods focus on the features of language and communication
(Fairhurst & Putnam, 2014), for example, the ways that semantics or
naming reveals struggles among actors in their efforts to define a situation
(Apker et al., 2005; Jameson, 2004; Lynch, 2009); contradictions in meanings
that arise from constellations of tensions (Harter, 2004; Kellett, 1999; Palmer
& Dunford, 2002); and the role of linguistic repertoires in revealing clashes
in power, identity, or relationships (Ashcraft, 2005; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte,
2013; Ruud, 2000). Putnam and Fairhurst (2001, 2014) review ten different
approaches to organizational discourse analysis and indicate how language pat-
terns, texts, arguments, and narrative, to name a few, could be used to identify
types of tensions, how they work together, and how organizational members
respond to them. Researchers who employ these methods focus on what the
discourse is doing, not what it represents (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
Employing different types of discourse methods also allows researchers to
cross multiple organizational levels and to interface individual and institutional
patterns through language-in-use and linguistic repertoires (Fairclough, 1995,
2005). Discourse methods introduce greater complexity and precision in the
analysis of talk, which often serves as the primary source of data for under-
standing how actors align tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes. For
example, Sheep et al. (in press) identify multiple tensions based on how
actors’ combine them as lay ontologies (Calori, 2002). Discourse methods
then allow researchers to focus on multiple tensions and multiple voices as
they emerge within organizational processes.
Discourse analysis also aids in identifying how organizational actors
embrace tensions and respond to contradictions and paradoxes. Specifically,
Jameson (2004) employed dialectical analysis to show how anesthesiologists
and nurses transcended role contradictions and held both autonomy and con-
nectedness together through rotating supervision. In like manner, studies that
focus on humor and irony demonstrated how these discursive practices were
used to reframe oppositional struggles and reveal alternatives for responding
to contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes (Butler & Modaff, 2008; Hatch,
1997; Jarzabkowski & Lê, in press; Martin, 2004).
Future Directions
To build on this lens, we propose three areas for future development: (1) shar-
pening the focus on time, (2) rethinking the role of rationality and emotionality
in contradictions, and (3) exploring the interplay between order and disorder.
The issue of time is critical to the developmental dimension of the constitutive
lens as well as to process studies of paradox in general. Yet, the reliance on

interview methods in this literature is so pervasive that researchers often
gloss temporal concerns in favor of identifying paradoxes and their effects.
Thus, scholars underreport or underutilize temporal features as well as fail
to bracket time and thereby implicitly assume that processes of development
follow a sequential pattern (Langley, 1999; Langley & Tsoukas, 2010). Hence,
research needs to embrace techniques for tracking the development of contra-
dictions and responses to them over time.
One way that researchers could move away from sequential or stage-based
notions of time is to “zoom in and zoom out” iteratively by alternating between

routine social interactions (i.e., micro-processes of organizing) and co-occur-
ring large-scale processes (Nicolini, 2009). For example, Jarzabkowski et al.
(2013) bracketed off interaction episodes in which organizational members
struggled with organizing tensions while they simultaneously zoomed out to
link these paradoxes to contradictions between values and beliefs in organiz-
ational restructuring across different organizational units. Through marking
off episodes and examining them at micro, meso, and macro levels, they ident-
ified how responses to paradoxes recursively fed into future actions. Focusing
on contradictions in rhythms of change over time offers another option for
examining the temporal development of paradoxes (Klarner & Raisch, 2013).
A focus on rhythms highlights intervals, event pacing, and momentum in
tracking the development of contradictions.
In studies that examine sequential developmental (i.e., changes during
present time), very few of them incorporate socio-historical notions of time.
In fact, Engeström and Sannino (2011) critiqued process-based studies of con-
tradiction for failing to identify the socio-historical roots of their investigations.
These two notions of time can be aligned through using a technique of
mapping to link developmental approaches to socio-historic conditions. To
illustrate, Abdallah et al. (2011) tracked leaders’ capacities to mitigate contra-
dictions through their uses of ambidextrous, “discourses of transcendence” in
organizational vision statements. They mapped the success and failure of these
discourses in three historically-based case studies and found that the very
mechanisms that made them appealing early in the process ultimately led to
their demise later when organizational conditions changed. Developmental
studies, then, need to align temporal features of ongoing processes with
socio-historical conditions. By doing so, analysts can discern the relevant dis-
courses that are already in play and that set the conditions for surface level
dynamics.
Relatedly, scholars need to be more explicit about the contextual reference
points linked to time. In particular, responses to tensions are deemed bad or
good or helpful or hurtful in relation to some reference point, end game, or
normative outcome (e.g., implementing change, increasing the bottom line,
enhancing employee well-being, or completing a successful project). A
constitutive lens highlights the “irreducibility of context” (Shotter & Tsoukas,

2014) in tracking how tensions develop over time, in socio-historic conditions,
and in connection to specific reference points or outcomes. To garner these
thick descriptions of contexts, however, scholars need to conduct in-depth
case studies and ethnographies that capture key features of both time and
context.
In addition to sharpening the focus on time, scholars need to rethink the
role of emotion in contradictions by moving away from rationality. By defi-
nition, tensions evoke feelings of stress, anxiety, and discomfort. Yet, with a
relatively few exceptions (Apker et al., 2005; Considine & Miller, 2010;
Garrety et al., 2003; Jenkins & Conley, 2007; Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010;
Vince & Broussine, 1996), researchers treat paradoxes in a rational, objective
manner. Rational approaches are evident in such practices as: isolating single
tensions and ignoring how they intensify as they interface with other contra-
dictions (Ghemawat & Costa, 1993), treating opposing forces in dialectical
studies as very systematic and objective (Costanzo & Di Domenico, 2015),
stressing general rules-of-thumb for managing leadership tensions (Denison,
Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995), and viewing ambidexterity as a normative solution
to paradox (Im & Rai, 2014). These practices, while commonplace, reflect a bias
for rational solutions and for shoving emotion into the background of paradox
research.
Investigations that focus on emotions in contradictory situations under-
score their direct link to workplace stress, burnout, and turnover. Specifically,
research shows that a continual oscillation between poles intensifies feelings of
anger and frustration (Apker et al., 2005; Nicotera & Clinkscales, 2010), par-
ticularly as multiple tensions amplify and attenuate one another. Moreover,
suppression of emotions in contradictory circumstances also ties to stress
and burnout. For instance, in a study of efforts to modernize the UK edu-
cational system, both teachers and parents managed contradictions between
centralized and decentralized systems and being involved versus professionally
detached through suppressing anger, frustration, and fear (Jenkins & Conley,
2007). Organizational actors who feigned positive emotions experienced high
levels of stress and burnout while teachers who embraced emotional dexterity
(i.e., switching among a range of emotions) effectively navigated contradictions
between market and social welfare policies.
As these studies suggest, a constitutive lens treats emotions as expressed in
and through discourse. Instead of eliding or suppressing feelings, this approach
aims to capture emotional expressions through interrogating tone of voice,
rapid speech patterns, facial expressions, gesturing, and other bodily signs of
tension, anxiety, or frustrations. An over-reliance on interview transcripts pri-
vileges speech content and marginalizes emotions by ignoring how they reside
in bodily performances. Focusing on expressed emotions captures the commu-
nicative framing of tensions, the interplay of the emotional with the rational,
and the value and moral commitments that underlie contradictions (Shotter &
Tsoukas, 2014).
In addition to rethinking the relationship between emotions and rationality,
paradox scholars need to embrace disorder and its interplay with order. Studies
of paradoxes typically reflect a bias for order or for focusing on how to resume
equilibrium in the managing of tensions and contradictions. This bias pre-
sumes that contradictions need to be resolved or effectively managed to
restore the status quo to a sense of predictability. When organizational
actors ground this preference for order in rationality; disorder becomes a devi-
ation or something that is abnormal (Cooper, 1986). Disorder, however, is not a

deviation to be conquered by order, but rather it represents a point of disjunc-
ture in which struggles over meaning become destabilized. In this view, dis-
order refers to the instability that surfaces in the presence of multiple,
plausible, and often competing meanings (Clegg, Kornberger, & Rhodes,
2005; Cooper, 1986). Through instability, disorder becomes visible, often
making order seem momentary and contingent (Kuhn, 2012).
Disorder also fosters an alternative logic for organizing, one rooted in irra-
tionality, difference, and fluid boundaries. Irrationality is often seen as the
“new normal” for organizations (Trethewey & Ashcraft, 2004, p. 83) or the
ways that contradictions and paradoxes populate “routine features of organiz-
ational life.” However, rather than ignoring paradoxes or treating them as pro-
blems to be solved or eliminated, organizational members need to live with
irrationality by holding incompatibilities together.
Disorder also embraces a logic of difference or the use of opposites to create
diverse points of view that promote awareness (Cooper, 1986). Organizing that
occurs through a logic of difference reveals how dissension counteracts consen-
sus, scarcity mobilizes affluence, and inconsistencies keep organizations coher-
ent. With a logic of difference, the principles of organizing form from
understanding the interfaces between opposites. For example, Sheep et al. (in
press) uncovered three disorder logics in their study of an innovation
company; namely, the end is just the beginning, knowledge is not power,
and the most creative are the least creative.
Scholars who work in the relational dialectics tradition call for embracing
this logic of difference and for examining the interplay between order and dis-
order. Specifically, actions aimed at organizing or creating order often become
known through ones that trigger disorder or simultaneously pull members
apart. To illustrate, Vásquez, Schoeneborn, and Sergi (2015) in their study of
three project teams observed that actions aimed at ordering (i.e., selecting or
fixing meanings of events) also invoked disordering through opening up the
possibility of multiple meanings. Specifically, they observed that the use of
questions, omissions, and assertions in team interactions disrupted presumed
understandings, created moments of disorder, and then fostered different ways
of ordering their activities. In their view, the interplay between order and
disorder kept actions and interactions in motion and situated meanings in a

continual process of negotiation.
Focusing on the interplay between ordering and disordering also shows how
paradoxes function at the boundaries or border zones of organization and dis-
organization (Knox, O’Doherty, Vurdubakis, & Westrup, 2015; Thompson,
2008). The border zones in which organizing both separates and enjoins
may be the new frontier for understanding contradictions since boundaries
are particularly problematic in an age of liquid modernity (Bauman, 2012)
in which change is faster than stabilizing routines. Rather than being fixtures
or enacted constructions (Weick, 1995), boundaries have become fluid, fleet-

ing, and unable to maintain their shape, form, or function over time. Spillover
between work and life, product development that crossing organizational
boundaries, digital technologies that blur private and public arenas necessitate
continual boundary work to set limits on contents, purposes, and practices for
particular domains (Nippert-Eng, 1996a, 1996b). The interactions in this
boundary work are not only linked to the interplay between order and disorder,
but they also harbor contradictions and paradoxes as normal, routine features
of organizational life. As Cooper (1986) aptly contends, boundaries are the loci
of paradoxical interactions. Future research on paradox and contradiction
needs to target boundary work, embrace irrationality as routine in organiz-
ational life, and focus on the ways that opposites create diversity through a
logic of difference. In essence, scholars need to treat order and disorder as
mutually enabling one another rather than privileging order as the goal of
tension management.
Overall, sharpening the focus on time, rethinking notions of rationality, and
exploring the interplay between order and disorder are three key avenues for
future research on organizational contradictions and paradoxes. These three
hold particular promise for advancing a constitutive lens through integrating
developmental and socio-historical dimensions of time, privileging emotions
and non-rational views of tensions, and adopting a logic of difference that
embraces both order and disorder in paradoxical processes.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this article, we asked what we could learn about organiz-
ational paradoxes and contradictions through examining research that
embraces a process-driven, constitutive approach. Our response to this ques-
tion entails three observations that cross the different metatheoretical tra-
ditions. First, this literature underscores the pervasiveness of paradoxes
across multiple levels, tensions, and voices in ways that call for requisite
variety in developing theories and models. This variety needs to match the
complexities evident in recursive cycles, movement of tensions within and
across levels, constraints between primary and secondary contradictions,
knotted and bundled tensions, and struggles over meaning. It suggests moving
away from determinant, equilibrium models and investigating ways that
organizational actors draw on disequilibrium to open options for responding
to tensions in different ways.
A second observation centers on the role of power across this literature.
Importantly, scholars have challenged the notion of overt power struggles
that stem from Hegelian views of dialectics and embraced views of power as
continuous, both enabling and constraining, and intertwined with resistance.
Thus, the operations of power have moved away from the outcome of manifest
conflicts to focus on ways that power surfaces in the continual interplay of ten-
sions over time. Two process outcomes, opening up participation and trans-
forming existing systems, are closely tied to power and merit concerted
investigation in the paradox and contradiction literature.
A third observation stems from the typology of different ways to respond to
organizational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. This typology suggests
that actors need to develop a repertoire of responses and know when particular
approaches might be sub-optimal. Given the importance of praxis in this litera-
ture, actors also need to focus on ways to develop deep levels of critical reflex-
ivity and collective consciousness, not just a superficial awareness of
contradictions.
This goal to enhance reflexivity has plenty of fodder from the increasing tur-
bulence in today’s organizational environments and as tensions, contradic-
tions, dialectics, and paradoxes become the order of the day. The
metatheoretical diversity presented in this article, along with our suggestions
for future directions, aims to meet the requisite variety of the new normal
that today’s organizations face. The prospect of developing a meta-perspective
with multiple theoretical approaches will continue to drive research on organ-
izational contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes for decades to come.
Notes
1. Farjourn (2010) presents a critique of the work on exploration and exploitation as
rooted in strict dualisms rather than conceived as a duality. By casting the two
concepts as clear-cut dichotomies rather than contradictions, this work presumes
discrete practices between binaries.
2. A discourse approach differs from a transmission model of communication that
highlights message exchange and information sharing. Also, in this work, the
process of developing meanings in routine interactions differs from the typical
use of the term sensemaking, which is often linked to individual cognitions in
the paradox literature.
3. Research reveals that organizational actors have at least partial knowledge of para-
doxical events through their awareness of latent tensions (Chreim, 2005; Hatch,
1997; Stoltzfus, Stohl, & Seibold, 2011).
4. An alternative way to conduct this review would be to cluster studies that focused
on one of the particular constructs, for example, contradictions, paradoxes, and
dialectics. However, multiple reviews already exist on organizational paradoxes
(Lewis, 2000; Lewis & Kelemen, 2002; Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis,
2011) and organizational dialectics (Langley & Sloan, 2011) and no reviews to
date cross different constructs or multiple paradigms. Moreover, all four con-
structs surface in the literature that adopts processed-based studies of actions,
interactions, and practices over time.
5. The 30 topic areas include careers; conflict and unions; decision making; emotions
and compassionate work; ethics and corporate social responsibility; gender and
diversity; globalization/intercultural; identity; innovation and creativity; institutional
theory, change and entrepreneurship; interorganizational collaborations; knowledge
management; leadership and management; organizational change; organizational
culture; organizational effectiveness; organizational learning; organizational net-
works; organizational theory; participation and organizational democracy; power,
resistance, and control; risk and risk management; socialization; social movements
and collective action; strategy and strategic management; teams and groups; technol-
ogy and information systems; work-life; and workplace relationships. Based on key
words and the focus of studies, coders often placed articles in more than one category.
Publications included theory and concept development, literature review and cri-
tique, empirical studies, and interventionist essays.
6. Developing any category scheme requires care in classifying publications, captur-
ing important distinctions, and contributing to the advancement of knowledge.
With a sample of 350 journal articles, books, and book chapters (see Table 5),
this classification was not an easy task. Our decision to organize this review
around the particular five metatheoretical traditions (i.e., process-based
systems, structuration, critical theory, postmodern, and relational dialectics)
was the outcome of considerable discussion among the authors regarding the
range of metatheories in this literature. As broad criteria, we considered: (1)
the prominence of the perspective in the publication, (2) differences in paradig-
matic assumptions, (3) variance in the treatment of constructs (e.g., their defi-
nitions, sources, loci, levels of analysis, etc.), and (4) the potential of the
metatheory to capture distinctions in the paradox literature. Our five categories
represent only one among several possible alternatives. However, we believe
they capture and pay tribute to the diversity of paradigmatic traditions that
characterize management and organizational studies writ large.
7. For discussions of Eastern and cross-cultural perspectives that ground contradic-
tions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational processes, see Bjerknes (1992),
Fang (2005, 2012), and McDonald (2011).
8. The schools of thought that fall into the tradition of process-based systems theory
include Hegelian dialectical theory, activity theory, process theories, evolutionary the-
ories, institutional theory, sensemaking theory, and paradox theory, to name a few.
9. Process-based systems approaches to the study of dialectics, paradoxes, and con-
tradictions encompass an array of topics, including leadership (Cunha, Kamoche,
& Cunha, 2003; Cunha, Rego, & Vaccaro, 2014; Manz, Anand, Joshi, & Manz,
2008); organizational structuring (Fombrun, 1986), organizational identities
and identification (Fiol, 2002; Kozica, Gebhardt, Muller-Seitz, & Kaiser, 2015;
Ladge, Clair, & Greenberg, 2012); organizational sustainability and risk
(Arjoon, 2006; Benn & Baker, 2009; Hahn, Preuss, Pinkse, & Figge, 2014; Juanillo
& Scherer, 1995), corporate social responsibility and crisis planning (Castello &
Lozano, 2011; Pang, Cropp, & Cameron, 2006); organizational time (Cunha,
2004); formalization and interorganizational relationships (Vlaar, Van den
Bosch, & Volberda, 2007); and strategy and organizational performance (Bour-
geois & Eisenhardt, 1988; Costanzo & Di Domenico, 2015; Ghemawat & Costa,
1993). These studies affirm the importance of paradoxes and contradictions in
processing complex issues, engaging multiple corporate stakeholders, negotiating
legitimacy, and buffering against uncertainty. In the research on information
technology, paradoxes of connectivity constitute the nature of virtual and tele-
work in ways that shape decision making processes, cultural norms, and the emer-
gence of new organizational forms (Bryson, 2008; Child & McGrath, 2001;
Drummond, 2008; Hedberg & Jönsson, 1978; Leonardi, Jackson, & Diwan,
2009; Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, & Jett, 2008).
10. See Langley and Sloan (2011) for a review of the work on dialectics and organ-
izational change. As a technique, dialectical inquiry was a type of organizational
intervention aimed at enhancing effective decision making in top management
teams (Bergadaà & Thiétart, 1997; Cosier, 1983; Cosier & Aplin, 1980; Kleist,
2013; Mason, 1969; Mason & Mitroff, 1979; Mitroff & Emshoff, 1979; Schweiger
& Sandberg, 1989; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Schweiger, Sandberg, &
Rechner, 1989; Schwenk, 1984, 1989). As a mantra, dialectics generated creative
synthesis between opposite poles (Harvey, 2014), developed innovative-suppor-
tive cultures (Khazanchi, Lewis, & Boyer, 2007), signaled wicked problems
(Stoppelenburg & Vermaak, 2008), and fostered contextual ambidexterity
(Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Im & Rai, 2014; Smith & Tushman, 2005). As
a narrative, dialectics served as a conceptual lens to describe and interpret
organizational change processes. Dialectics as critique parallels our treatment
of critical theory and postmodern studies on power relationships and
domination.
11. These new directions are not the same as trialectics, which is a logic of change
grounded in unity and attraction rather than in struggle or opposition (Ford &
Backoff, 1988; Ford & Ford, 1994, 1995). Trialectics works from discontinuous
change based on mutations while dialectics works from contradictions grounded
in continuous management of tensions (Carini, Palich, & Wagner, 1995).
12. The latent contradictions that set the stage for the role of dialectics in institutional
change are: (1) inefficiencies; that is, contradictions between performance and
market alternatives, (2) non-adaptability or contradictions in responding to
environmental jolts, (3) institutional incompatibilities that stem from deeply
held but opposite values, and (4) misaligned interests that develop from efforts
to meet opposing interests and demands (Seo & Creed, 2002).
13. Of note, structuration studies treat reproduction and transformation of structures

as occurring in a dialectical interplay. That is, ongoing actions and interactions
both maintain some structural properties of the current system while changing
others.
14. Of note, Hegel’s (1969) notion of dialectics is teleological in that it has a
determinant end that resolves the contradiction. Other dialectical theorists
reject this view and adopt a model of indeterminacy in which the two oppos-
ing tendencies continue their ongoing relationship. This explanation led some
scholars to conclude that Hegelian notions of synthesis favored one pole over
the other through the practice of negation (Ford & Backoff, 1988). This review
by necessity glosses the tenets of critical theory and the distinctions between
Hegel’s (1969) and Marx’s (1906) uses of the dialectical method. For Hegel,
history progressed dialectically through thesis-antithesis leading to a synthesis
as a resolution to past struggles. Marx departed from this socio-historic
process through treating dialectics as a kind of truth barometer that required
consciousness of inherent contradictions to affect economic and structural
change.
15. Notably, although contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes are all frequently
cited in postmodern literature, a majority of studies opt for the term tension
to describe organizational actors’ experiences in dealing with struggles over
meaning.
16. This tradition examines a variety of topics from an array of theories, including
organizational culture (Badham, Garrety, Morrigan, Zanko, & Dawson, 2003;
Coupland, 2001; Henderson, 2003; Hodgson, 2004; Hylmö & Buzzanell, 2002;
Kan & Parry, 2004), participation and democracy (Groscurth, 2011; Koschmann
& Laster, 2011; Musson & Duberley, 2007; O’Connor, 1995; Stohl & Cheney,
2001), feminist theory (Ashcraft, 2005, 2006; Buzzanell & Liu, 2005; Fletcher,
2004; Ford, 2006; Katila & Merilainen, 2002; Mills, 2002; Sotirin & Gottfried,
1999; Townsley & Geist, 2000), postcolonial theory (Norander & Harter, 2011;
Pal & Buzzanell, 2013), and actor-network theory (Ahrens & Mollona, 2007),
among others.
17. Importantly, while postmodern research embodies the assumption that living out
the dialectic between power and resistance both enables and constrains action,
only a small number of investigations focus on this type of process outcome
(Ahrens & Mollona, 2007; Holmer-Nadesan, 1996; Putnam, 2004; Van den
Brink & Stobbe, 2009).
18. In communication, the initial focus on relational dialectics was in the study of
interpersonal relationships, specifically, how they develop, maintain themselves,
or deteriorate over time (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
19. See, for example, Apker, Propp, and Zabava Ford (2005); Barge, Lee, Maddux,
Nabring, and Townsend (2008); Bochantin (2014); Bridge and Baxter (1992);
Considine and Miller (2010); Dean and Oetzel (2014); Donohue, Pugh, and
Sabrie (2014); Driskill, Meyer, and Mirivel (2012); Erbert, Mearns, and Dena
(2005); Galanes (2009); Gibbs (2009); Jameson (2004); Jenkins and Dillon
(2012); Lewis, Isbell, and Koschmann (2010); McGuire (2006); McNamee and
Peterson (2014); Pitts, Fowler, Kaplan, Nussbaum, and Becker (2009); Putnam
et al. (2014); Sias, Heath, Perry, Silva, and Fix (2004); Thatcher (2011); Tracy
(2004); Zorn, Roper, and Richardson (2014).
References
Abdallah, C., Denis, J. L., & Langley, A. (2011). Having your cake and eating it too:
Discourses of transcendence and their role in organizational change dynamics.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 333–348. doi:10.1108/

09534811111132730
Ahrens, T., & Mollona, M. (2007). Organisational control as cultural practice: A shop
floor ethnography of a Sheffield steel mill. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 32(4/5), 305– 331. doi:10.1016/j.aos.2006.08.001
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2012). Critical leadership studies: The case for critical per-
formativity. Human Relations, 65(3), 367– 390. doi:10.1177/0018726711430555
Anderson, W. K. Z., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2009). “Outcast among outcasts": Identity,
gender, and leadership in a Mac users group. Women and Language, 30(1),
32 – 45.
Andriopoulos, C. (2003). Six paradoxes in managing creativity: An embracing act. Long
Range Planning, 36(4), 375 – 388. doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(03)00071-2
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organ-
izational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science,
20(4), 696 – 717. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Ann, C., & Carr, A. N. (2010). Critical reflections on the good, the bad and the ugly of
organisation leadership: The case of Wal Mart. Culture and Organization, 16(2),
109 – 125. doi:10.1080/14759551003769268
Apker, J. (2004). Sensemaking of change in the managed care era: A case of hospital-
based nurses. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 211– 227.
doi:10.1108/09534810410530629
Apker, J., Propp, K. M., & Zabava Ford, W. S. (2005). Negotiating status and identity
tensions in healthcare team interactions: An exploration of nurse role dialectics.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33(2), 93 –115. doi:10.1080/
00909880500044620
Aredal, A. (1986). A modern management pattern found in a classical myth. Journal of
Management, 12(3), 403 – 414. doi:10.1177/014920638601200308
Argyris, C. (1982). The executive mind and double-loop learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 11(2), 5 – 22. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(82)90002-X
Arjoon, S. (2006). Striking a balance between rules and principles-based approaches for
effective governance: A risks-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1),
53 – 82. doi:10.1007/S10551-006-9040-6
Ashcraft, K. L. (2005). Resistance through consent?: Occupational identity, organiz-
ational form, and the maintenance of masculinity among commercial airline
pilots. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 67 – 90. doi:10.1177/
0893318905276560
Ashcraft, K. L. (2006). Feminist-bureaucratic control and other adversarial allies:
Extending organized dissonance to the practice of “new” forms.
Communication Monographs, 73(1), 55 – 86. doi:10.1080/03637750600557081
Ashcraft, K. L., & Trethewey, A. (2004). Developing tension: An agenda for applied
research on the organization of irrationality. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 32(2), 171 – 181. doi:10.1080/0090988042000178103
Badham, R., Garrety, K., Morrigan, V., Zanko, M., & Dawson, P. (2003). Designer
deviance: Enterprise and deviance in culture change programmes.
Organization, 10(4), 707 – 730. doi:10.1177/13505084030104001
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In
M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin (pp.
259 – 422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.).
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Barge, J. K. (2006). Dialogue, conflict, and community. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory,
research, and practice (pp. 517 – 544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barge, J. K., Lee, M., Maddux, K., Nabring, R., & Townsend, B. (2008). Managing dua-
lities in planned change initiatives. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
36(4), 364 – 390. doi:10.1080/00909880802129996
Barge, J. K., & Little, M. (2002). Dialogical wisdom, communicative practice, and organ-
izational life. Communication Theory, 12(4), 375– 397. doi:10.1093/Ct/12.4.375
Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring:
The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 355–
372. doi:10.2307/2393029
Bartunek, J. M. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R. E.
Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of
change in organization and management (pp. 137– 162). Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Bartunek, J. M. (2006). The Christmas gift: A story of dialectics. Organization Studies,
27(12), 1875– 1894. doi:10.1177/0170840606071943
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. (2014). Academics and practitioners are alike and unlike:
The paradoxes of academic-practitioner relationships. Journal of Management,
40(5), 1181– 1201. doi:10.1177/0149206314529160
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. New York, NY: Ballentine Books.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: Dutton.
Bauman, Z. (2012). Liquid modernity. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues & dialectics. New York:
Guildford Press.
Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox
as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10),
1313– 1332. doi:10.1177/0018726704048357
Beech, N., MacPhail, S. A., & Coupland, C. (2009). Anti-dialogic positioning in change
stories: Bank robbers, saviours and peons. Organization, 16(3), 335– 352. doi:10.
1177/1350508409102299
Beer, M. (2001). How to develop an organization capable of sustained high perform-
ance: Embrace the drive for results-capability development paradox.
Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 233 – 247. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(01)00030-4
Benn, S., & Baker, E. (2009). Advancing sustainability through change and innovation:
A co-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), 383– 397.
doi:10.1080/14697010903360574
Benson, J. K. (1973). The analysis of bureaucratic-professional conflict: Functional
versus dialectical approaches. Sociological Quarterly, 14(3), 376– 394. doi:10.
1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb00867.x
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(1), 1 –21. doi:10.2307/2391741
Benson, J. K. (1983). A dialectical method for the study of organizations. In G. Morgan
(Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 331– 346). Beverly Hills,
CA: SAGE.
Bergadaà, M., & Thiétart, R. A. (1997). Stradin: A strategic dynamic and interactive
decision-making process. Group Decision and Negotiation, 6(1), 61 – 75. doi:10.
1023/A:1008688508836
Berglund, J., & Werr, A. (2000). The invincible character of management consulting
rhetoric: How one blends incommensurates while keeping them apart.
Bisel, R. S. (2009). On a growing dualism in organizational discourse research.
Management Communication Quarterly, 22(4), 614– 638. doi:10.1177/
0893318908331100
Bjerknes, G. (1992). Dialectical reflection in information systems development.
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 55 – 77.
Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity
systems and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6),
863 – 884. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00470.x
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective
on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305– 337. doi:10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2009.01154.x
Bloodgood, J. M., & Chae, B. (2010). Organizational paradoxes: Dynamic shifting and
integrative management. Management Decision, 48(1), 85 – 104. doi:10.1108/
00251741011014472
Bochantin, J. E. (2014). “Long live the mensi-mob”: Communicating support online
with regards to experiencing menopause in the workplace. Communication
Studies, 65(3), 260– 280. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.811433
Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A constructivist perspec-
tive on organizations. Organization, 5(2), 217–232. doi:10.1177/
135050849852004
Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision process in high velocity
environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science,
34(7), 816 – 835. doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.7.816
Bridge, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1992). Blended relationships: Friends as work associates.
Western Journal of Communication, 56(3), 200– 225. doi:10.1080/
10570319209374414
Bryson, J. (2008). Dominant, emergent, and residual culture: The dynamics of organiz-
ational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(6), 743– 757.
doi:10.1108/09534810810915754
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). Revisioning organization development:

Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348 – 368. doi:10.1177/0021886309335070
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (Eds.). (2015). Dialogic organization development: The
theory and practice of transformational change. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Butler, J. A., & Modaff, D. P. (2008). When work is home: Agency, structure, and con-
tradictions. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 232– 257. doi:10.
1177/0893318908323151
Buzzanell, P. M., & Liu, M. (2005). Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices:
A poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. Journal of Applied

Communication Research, 33(1), 1–25. doi:10.1080/0090988042000318495
Buzzanell, P. M., & Liu, M. (2007). It’s ‘give and take’: Maternity leave as a conflict manage-
ment process. Human Relations, 60(3), 463–495. doi:10.1177/0018726707076688
Callaghan, G., & Thompson, P. (2002). ‘We recruit attitude’: The selection and shaping
of routine call centre labour. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 233– 254.
doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00290
Calori, R. (2002). Organizational development and the ontology of creative dialectical
evolution. Organization, 9(1), 127 – 150. doi:10.1177/1350508402009001352
Calton, J. M., & Payne, S. L. (2003). Coping with paradox: Multistakeholder learning
dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems.
Business & Society, 42(1), 7 – 42. doi:10.1177/0007650302250505
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.
Canary, H. E. (2010a). Constructing policy knowledge: Contradictions, communication,
and knowledge frames. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 181– 206. doi:10.
1080/03637751003758185
Canary, H. E. (2010b). Structurating activity theory: An integrative approach to policy
knowledge. Communication Theory, 20(1), 21 – 49. doi:10.1111/j.1468– 2885.
2009.01354.x
Carini, G. R., Palich, L. E., & Wagner, J. A. (1995). Trialectics: A questionable logic for
organizational change research. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 503–
509. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.15355591
Carlo, J. L., Lyytinen, K., & Boland, R. J. (2012). Dialectics of collective minding:
Contradictory appropriations of information technology in a high-risk project.
MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1081–1108.
Carlone, D., & Larson, G. S. (2006). Locating possibilities for control and resistance in a
self-help program. Western Journal of Communication, 70(4), 270– 291. doi:10.
1080/10570310600992087
Carr, A. (2000a). Critical theory and the management of change in organizations.
09534810010330869
Carr, A. (2000b). Critical theory and the psychodynamics of change: A note about
organizations as therapeutic settings. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 13(3), 289 – 299. doi:10.1108/09534810010330931
Carroll, B., & Nicholson, H. (2014). Resistance and struggle in leadership development.
Human Relations, 67(11), 1413–1436. doi:10.1177/0018726714521644
Carroll, L. A., & Arneson, P. (2003). Communication in a shared governance hospital:
Managing emergent paradoxes. Communication Studies, 54(1), 35 – 55. doi:10.
1080/10510970309363263
Castello, I., & Lozano, J. M. (2011). Searching for new forms of legitimacy through cor-
porate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), 11 – 29. doi:10.
1007/S10551-011-0770-8
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), 543 – 576. doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543
Chanin, M. N., & Shapiro, H. J. (1985). Dialectical inquiry in strategic planning:

Extending the boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 663– 675.
doi:10.2307/258037
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cheney, G. (2008). Encountering the ethics of engaged scholarship. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 36(3), 281 – 288. doi:10.1080/00909880802172293
Cheney, G., & Cloud, D. L. (2006). Doing democracy, engaging the material.
0893318905285485
Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. (2001). Organizations unfettered: Organizational form in an
information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135–
1148. doi:10.2307/3069393
Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Robey, R. (2007). Dialectics of resilience: A multi-level analy-
sis of a telehealth innovation. Journal of Information Technology, 22(1), 24 – 35.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000088
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis in organizational
studies: Towards an integrationist methodology. Journal of Management
Studies, 47(6), 1213– 1218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00883.x
Chreim, S. (2005). The continuity-change duality in narrative texts of organizational
identity. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 567– 593. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2005.00509.x
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2015). Discursive closure and discursive
openings in sustainability. Management Communication Quarterly, 29(1), 135–
144. doi:10.1177/0893318914563574
Clair, R. P. (1997). Organizing silence: Silence as voice and voice as silence in the nar-
rative exploration of the Treaty of New Echota. Western Journal of
Communication, 61(3), 315 – 337. doi:10.1080/10570319709374580
Clarke, M. (1998). Can specialists be general managers?: Developing paradoxical think-
ing in middle managers. Journal of Management Development, 17(3), 191– 206.
doi:10.1108/02621719810210730
Clegg, S. R., Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational
view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483– 503. doi:10.1177/0018726702555001
Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2005). Learning/becoming/organizing.
Cloud, D. L. (2005). Fighting words: Labor and the limits of communication at Staley,
1993 to 1996. Management Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 509– 542. doi:10.
1177/0893318904273688
Coad, A. F., & Glyptis, L. G. (2014). Structuration: A position-practice perspective and

an illustrative study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(2), 142– 161. doi:10.
1016/j.cpa.2012.10.002
Collier, M. J. (2009). Negotiating intercommunity and community group identity pos-
itions: Summary discourses from two Northern Ireland intercommunity groups.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2(3), 285– 306. doi:10.1111/j.
1750-4716.2009.00041.x
Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419– 1442.
doi:10.1177/0018726705060902
Collinson, D. (2014). Dichotomies, dialectics and dilemmas: New directions for critical
leadership studies? Leadership, 10(1), 36 –55. doi:10.1177/1742715013510807

Considine, J., & Miller, K. (2010). The dialectics of care: Communicative choices at the end
of life. Health Communication, 25(2), 165–174. doi:10.1080/10410230903544951
Cooper, D. J., Hinings, B., Greenwood, R., & Brown, J. L. (1996). Sedimentation and
transformation in organizational change: The case of Canadian law firms.
Organization Studies, 17(4), 623 – 647. doi:10.1177/017084069601700404
Cooper, R. (1986). Organization/disorganization. Social Science Information, 25(2),
299 – 335. doi:10.1177/053901886025002001
Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 3: The con-
tribution of Jacques Derrida. Organization Studies, 10(4), 479– 502. doi:10.1177/
017084068901000402
Cosier, R. A. (1983). Research notes and communications: Approaches for the exper-
imental examination of the dialectic. Strategic Management Journal, 4(1), 79 –
84. doi:10.1002/smj.4250040108
Cosier, R. A., & Aplin, J. C. (1980). A critical view of dialectical inquiry as a tool in stra-
tegic planning. Strategic Management Journal, 1(4), 343– 356. doi:10.1002/smj.
4250010405
Cosier, R. A., Ruble, T. L., & Aplin, J. C. (1978). An evaluation of the effectiveness of
dialectical inquiry systems. Management Science, 24(14), 1483– 1490. doi:10.
1287/mnsc.24.14.1483
Costanzo, L. A., & Di Domenico, M. L. (2015). A multi-level dialectical-paradox lens for
top management team strategic decision-making in a corporate venture. British
Journal of Management, 26(3), 484 – 506. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12073
Coupland, C. (2001). Accounting for change: A discourse analysis of graduate trainees’
talk of adjustment. Journal of Management Studies, 38(8), 1103– 1119. doi:10.
1111/1467-6486.00274
Cule, P. E., & Robey, D. (2004). A dual-motor, constructive process model of organiz-
ational transition. Organization Studies, 25(2), 229– 260. doi:10.1177/
0170840604040037
Cunha, M. P. (2004). Organizational time: A dialectical view. Organization, 11(2), 271–
296. doi:10.1177/1350508404041616
Cunha, M. P., Kamoche, K., & Cunha, R. C. (2003). Organizational improvisation and
leadership: A field study in two computer-mediated settings. International Studies
of Management and Organization, 33(1), 34 – 57. doi:10.2307/40397556
Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., & Vaccaro, A. (2014). Organizations as human communities
and internal markets: Searching for duality. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4),
441 – 455. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1998-2
Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of

Management Education, 28(4), 407 – 426. doi:10.1177/1052562904264440
Cyphert, D., & Saiia, D. H. (2004). In search of the corporate citizen: The emerging dis-
course of corporate ecology. Southern Communication Journal, 69(3), 241– 256.
doi:10.1080/10417940409373295
Das, T. K., & Kumar, R. (2010). Interpartner sensemaking in strategic alliances:
Managing cultural differences and internal tensions. Management Decision,
48(1), 17 – 36. doi:10.1108/00251741011014436
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions
perspective. Organization Science, 11(1), 77 – 101. doi:10.1287/Orsc.11.1.77.12570
Davis, A. S., Maranville, S. J., & Obloj, K. (1997). The paradoxical process of organiz-
ational transformation: Propositions and a case study. In W. A. Pasmore & R.
W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol.
10, pp. 275 – 314). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Dean, M., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Physicians’ perspectives of managing tensions around
dimensions of effective communication in the emergency department. Health
Communication, 29(3), 257 – 266. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.743869
De Cock, C., & Rickards, T. (1996). Thinking about organizational change: Towards two
kinds of process intervention. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
4(3), 233 – 251. doi:10.1108/eb028850
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in com-
munication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: Rethinking
Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7(2), 191–207.
Delbridge, R., & Edwards, T. (2013). Inhabiting institutions: Critical realist refinements
to understanding institutional complexity and change. Organization Studies,
34(7), 927 – 947. doi:10.1177/0170840613483805
Denhardt, R. B. (1981). Toward a critical theory of public organization. Public
Administration Review, 41(6), 628 – 635. doi:10.2307/975738
Denis, J. L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., & Rouleau, L. (2011). Escalating indecision:
Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22(1), 225–
244. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0501
Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward
a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science,
6(5), 524 – 540. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.5.524
Donohue, W. A., Pugh, F., & Sabrie, S. (2014). Somali piracy negotiations: Resolving the
paradoxes of extortionate transactions. Negotiation and Conflict Management
Research, 7(3), 173 – 187. doi:10.1111/Ncmr.12033
Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanan, D. (2000). Mixed results, lousy process: The man-
agement experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management,
11(SI), S59– S80. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.11.s1.6
Driskill, G. W., Meyer, J., & Mirivel, J. C. (2012). Managing dialectics to make a differ-
ence: Tension management in a community-building organization.
Communication Studies, 63(2), 243– 261. doi:10.1080/10510974.2011.634476
Drummond, H. (2008). The Icarus paradox: An analysis of a totally destructive system.
Journal of Information Technology, 23(3), 176– 184. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.
2000119
Engeström, Y. (2000). From individual action to collective action and back:

Developmental work research as an interventionist methodology. In P. Luff, J.
Hindmarsh, & C. Heath (Eds.), Workplace studies: Recovering work practices
and information system design (pp. 150 – 166). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in
organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368– 387. doi:10.1108/
09534811111132758
Erbert, L. A., Mearns, G. M., & Dena, S. (2005). Perceptions of turning points and dia-
lectical interpretations in organizational team development. Small Group

Research, 36(1), 21 – 58. doi:10.1177/1046496404266774
Erhardt, N., & Gibbs, J. L. (2014). The dialectical nature of impression management in
knowledge work: Unpacking tensions in media use between managers and subor-
dinates. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 155– 186. doi:10.1177/
0893318913520508
Evans, J. A., Kunda, G., & Barley, S. R. (2004). Beach time, bridge and billable time
hours: The temporal structure of technical contracting. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 49(1), 1 –38. doi:10.2307/4131454
Evans, P., & Doz, Y. (1992). Dualities: A paradigm for human resource and organiz-
ational development in complex multinationals. In V. Pucik, N. M. Tichy, & C.
K. Barnett (Eds.), Globalizing management: Creating and leading in the competi-
tive organization (pp. 83 – 104). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London,
UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Peripheral vision: Discourse analysis in organization studies: The
case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915–939. doi:10.1177/
0170840605054610
Fairhurst, G. T., Cooren, F., & Cahill, D. J. (2002). Discursiveness, contradiction and
unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management
Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 501 – 540. doi:10.1177/0893318902154001
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2014). Organizational discourse analysis. In L. L.
Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communi-
cation: Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 271– 296).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fang, T. (2005). From” onion” to” ocean": Paradox and change in national cultures.
International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(4), 71– 90. doi:10.
1080/00208825.2005.11043743
Fang, T. (2012). Yin yang: A new perspective on culture. Management and Organization
Review, 8(1), 25 – 50. doi:10.1111/J.1740-8784.2011.00221.X
Farjoun, M. (2002). The dialectics of institutional development in emerging and turbu-
lent fields: The history of pricing conventions in the on-line database industry.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 848– 874. doi:10.2307/3069318
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of
Management Review, 35(2), 202 – 225. doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.48463331
Farjoun, M. (in press). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. In H. Tsoukas & A.
Langley (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organ-

izational identities. Organization Science, 13(6), 653–666. doi:10.1287/Orsc.13.6.
653.502
Fleming, P. (2007). Sexuality, power and resistance in the workplace. Organization
Studies, 28(2), 239– 256. doi:10.1177/0170840606068307
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2008). Beyond power and resistance: New approaches to
organizational politics. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 301–
309. doi:10.1177/0893318907309928
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power,
and transformational change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647– 661. doi:10.1016/
j.leaqua.2004.07.004
Florida, R. (2003). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure,
community, and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Foldy, E. G. (2006). Dueling schemata: Dialectical sensemaking about gender. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 42(3), 350 – 372. doi:10.1177/0021886306290309
Fombrun, C. J. (1986). Structural dynamics within and between organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 403 – 421. doi:10.2307/2392830
Foot, K. A. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating the
development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory, 11(1), 56 –
83. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00233.x
Ford, J. (2006). Discourses of leadership: Gender, identity and contradiction in a UK
public sector organization. Leadership, 2(1), 77–99. doi:10.1177/1742715006060654
Ford, J. D., & Backoff, R. H. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and
paradox. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation:
Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 81– 122).
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in
change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756–785. doi:10.5465/AMR.
1994.9412190218
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). Getting caught in our point of view: A response to
Carini and colleagues. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 785– 787.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.28081370
Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2008). Fear and loathing in harrogate, or a study of a confer-
ence. Organization, 15(2), 233 – 250. doi:10.1177/1350508407086582
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.).
New York, NY: Pantheon.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature cor-
porations. California Management Review, 50(1), 94 – 120. doi:10.2307/
41166418
Fyke, J. P., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). The ethics of conscious capitalism: Wicked pro-
blems in leading change and changing leaders. Human Relations, 66(12), 1619–
1643. doi:10.1177/0018726713485306
Galanes, G. J. (2009). Dialectical tensions of small group leadership. Communication
Studies, 60(5), 409– 425. doi:10.1080/10510970903260228
Garrety, K., Badham, R., Morrigan, V., Rifkin, W., & Zanko, M. (2003). The use of per-
sonality typing in organizational change: Discourse, emotions and the reflexive
subject. Human Relations, 56(2), 211– 235. doi:10.1177/0018726703056002892
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Sambamurthy, V. (2006). Emergent by design:

Performance and transformation at Infosys Technologies. Organization Science,
17(2), 277 – 286. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0179
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it
important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3),
593 – 608. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0485
Ghemawat, P., & Costa, J. E. R. I. (1993). The organizational tension between static and
dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 59 – 73. doi:10.1002/
smj.4250141007
Gibbs, J. (2009). Dialectics in a global software team: Negotiating tensions across time, space,
and culture. Human Relations, 62(6), 905–935. doi:10.1177/0018726709104547

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2),
209 – 226. doi:10.2307/20159573
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradic-
tion in social analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Golden, A. G., Kirby, E. L., & Jorgenson, J. (2006). Work life research from both sides
now: An integrative perspective for organizational and family communication. In
C. S. Beck (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 30, pp. 143 – 195). Mawah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldman, A. (2008). Consultant and critics on the couch. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 17(3), 243 – 249. doi:10.1177/1056492608318160
Gondo, M. B., & Amis, J. M. (2013). Variations in practice adoption: The roles of con-
scious reflection and discourse. Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 229– 247.
doi:10.5465/Amr.2010.0312
Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in
dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147(5), 435–453. doi:10.1080/
00223980.2012.710663
Goodier, B. C., & Eisenberg, E. M. (2006). Seeking the spirit: Communication and the
(re)development of a “spiritual” organization. Communication Studies, 57(1), 47 –
65. doi:10.1080/10510970500483413
Gordon, M. E. (2010). The dialectics of the exit interview: A fresh look at conversations
about organizational disengagement. Management Communication Quarterly,
25(1), 59 – 86. doi:10.1177/0893318910376914
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2007). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and
change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews,
10(3), 265 – 280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00222.x
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2009). Duality theory and organizing forms in change
management. Journal of Change Management, 9(1), 9 – 25. doi:10.1080/
14697010902727146
Gray, B., Bougon, M. G., & Donnellon, A. (1985). Organizations as constructions and
destructions of meaning. Journal of Management, 11(2), 83 –98. doi:10.1177/
014920638501100212
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields:
The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27 – 48.
doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785498
Grimes, A. J., & Cornwall, J. R. (1987). The disintegration of an organization: A dialectical

analysis. Journal of Management, 13(1), 69–86. doi:10.1177/014920638701300106
Groleau, C., Demers, C., & Engeström, Y. (2011). Guest editorial. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(3), 330–332. doi:10.1108/09534811111132721
Groleau, C., Demers, C., Lalancette, M., & Barros, M. (2012). From hand drawings to
computer visuals: Confronting situated and institutionalized practices in an archi-
tecture firm. Organization Science, 23(3), 651 – 671. doi:10.1287/Orsc.1110.0667
Groscurth, C. R. (2011). Paradoxes of privilege and participation: The case of the
American Red Cross. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 296 –314. doi:10.1080/
01463373.2011.583498
Haddadj, S. (2006). Paradoxical process in the organizational change of the CEO succes-
sion: A case study from France. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
19(4), 447 – 456. doi:10.1108/09534810610676653
Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustain-
ability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames.
Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463– 487. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.0341
Hancock, P., & Tyler, M. (2001). Managing subjectivity and the dialectic of self-con-
sciousness: Hegel and organization theory. Organization, 8(4), 565– 585. doi:10.
1177/135050840184002
Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional
innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864– 888. doi:10.5465/AMR.
2006.22527458
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). The unintended consequences of culture interven-
tions: A study of unexpected outcomes. British Journal of Management, 13(1),
31 – 49. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00221
Harter, L. M. (2004). Masculinity(s), the agrarian frontier myth, and cooperative ways of
organizing: Contradictions and tensions in the experience and enactment of
democracy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 89 – 118. doi:10.
1080/0090988042000210016
Harter, L. M., Scott, J. A., Novak, D. R., Leeman, M., & Morris, J. F. (2006). Freedom
through flight: Performing a counter-narrative of disability. Journal of Applied
Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group crea-
tivity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324– 343. doi:10.5465/amr.2012.
0224
Haslett, B. B. (2012). Communicating and organizing in context: The theory of structura-
tional interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hatch, M. J. (1997). Irony and the social construction of contradiction in the humor of a
management team. Organization Science, 8(3), 275– 288. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.3.275
Hatch, M. J., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1993). Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox
and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505– 526. doi:10.
1177/017084069301400403
Hedberg, B., & Jönsson, S. (1978). Designing semi-confusing information systems for
organizations in changing environments. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 3(1), 47 – 64. doi:10.1016/0361-3682(78)90006-5
Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). The philosophy of history (J. Sibree, Trans.). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Hemetsberger, A., & Reinhardt, C. (2009). Collective development in open-source com-

munities: An activity theoretical perspective on successful online collaboration.
Henderson, A. (2003). Slaves to the market?: Competing discourses and paradoxical
practices in a small business in New Zealand. Australian Journal of
Communication, 30(1), 109 – 125.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through
learning theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621–641. doi:10.1177/
001872679604900505
Hennestad, B. W. (1990). The symbolic impact of double bind leadership: Double bind
and the dynamics of organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies,

27(3), 265 – 280. doi:10.1111/J.1467-6486.1990.Tb00247.X
Hernes, T. (2014). A process theory of organization. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Heydebrand, W. (1977). Organizational contradictions in public bureaucracies: Toward
a Marxian theory of organizations. Sociological Quarterly, 18(1), 83 – 107. doi:10.
1111/j.1533-8525.1977.tb02163.x
Hodgson, D. E. (2004). Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureau-
cratic organization. Organization, 11(1), 81–100. doi:10.1177/1350508404039659
Holmer-Nadesan, M. (1996). Organizational identity and space of action. Organization
Studies, 17(1), 49– 81. doi:10.1177/017084069601700103
Holquist, M. (Ed.). (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Hopson, M. C., & Orbe, M. P. (2007). Playing the game: Recalling dialectical tensions for
black men in oppressive organizational structures. Howard Journal of
Communications, 18(1), 69 – 86. doi:10.1080/10646170601147481
Howard, L. A., & Geist, P. (1995). Ideological positioning in organizational change: The
dialectic of control in a merging organization. Communication Monographs,
62(2), 110 – 131. doi:10.1080/03637759509376352
Huxham, C., & Beech, N. (2003). Contrary prescriptions: Recognizing good practice
tensions in management. Organization Studies, 24(1), 69 – 93. doi:10.1177/
0170840603024001678
Hylmö, A., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2002). Telecommuting as viewed through cultural
lenses: An empirical investigation of the discourses of utopia, identity, and
mystery. Communication Monographs, 69(4), 329– 356. doi:10.1080/
03637750216547
Iedema, R., Degeling, P., Braithwaite, J., & White, L. (2004). ‘It’s an interesting conver-
sation I’m hearing’: The doctor as manager. Organization Studies, 25(1), 15 – 33.
doi:10.1177/0170840604038174
Im, G., & Rai, A. (2014). IT-enabled coordination for ambidextrous interorganizational
relationships. Information Systems Research, 25(1), 72 – 92. doi:10.1287/isre.2013.
0496
Israel, J. (1979). The language of dialectics and the dialectics of language. Copenhagen,
DK: Munksgaard Humanities Press.
Jackson, W. A. (1999). Dualism, duality and the complexity of economic institutions.
International Journal of Social Economics, 26(4), 545– 558. doi:10.1108/
03068299910215997
Jameson, J. K. (2004). Negotiating autonomy and connection through politeness: A dia-

lectical approach to organizational conflict management. Western Journal of
Janssens, M., & Steyaert, C. (1999). The world in two and a third way out? The concept
of duality in organization theory and practice. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 15(2), 121 – 139. doi:10.1016/S0956-5221(98)00010-4
Jarzabkowski, P., & Lê, J. (in press). We have to do this and that? You must be joking:
Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies.
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing stra-
tegic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve.
Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245 – 280. doi:10.1177/1476127013481016

Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137– 159. doi:10.5465/
Amj.2010.0772
Jenkins, J. J., & Dillon, P. J. (2012). “This is what we’re all about”: The (re)construction
of an oppressive organizational structure. Southern Communication Journal,
77(4), 287 – 306. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2012.672538
Jenkins, S., & Conley, H. (2007). Living with the contradictions of modernization?
Emotional management in the teaching profession. Public Administration,
85(4), 979 – 1001. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00675.x
Jermier, J. M. (1985). “When the sleeper wakes": A short story extending themes in
radical organization theory. Journal of Management, 11(2), 67 – 80. doi:10.1177/
014920638501100210
Jian, G. (2007a). “Omega is a four-letter word": Toward a tension-centered model of
resistance to information and communication technologies. Communication
Monographs, 74(4), 517 – 540. doi:10.1080/03637750701716602
Jian, G. (2007b). Unpacking unintended consequences in planned organizational
change: A process model. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 5 – 28.
doi:10.1177/0893318907301986
Johansson, C., & Stohl, C. (2012). Cultural competence and institutional contradictions:
The hydropower referendum. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(4),
329– 349. doi:10.1080/00909882.2012.720379
Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of
Management Studies, 40(5), 1279– 1303. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00380
Johnson, S. D., & Long, L. M. (2002). Being a part and being apart: Dialectics and group
communication. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New Directions In Group Communication
(pp. 25 – 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jones, C. (2004). Jacques Derrida. In S. Linstead (Ed.), Organization theory and postmo-
dern thought (pp. 34 – 63). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jones, T. S. (1994). A dialectical reframing of the mediation process. In J. P. Folger & T.
S. Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation: Communication research and per-
spectives (pp. 26 – 47). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Jones, T. S., & Bodtker, A. (1998). A dialectical analysis of a social justice process:
International collaboration in South Africa. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 26(4), 357 – 373. doi:10.1080/00909889809365514
Juanillo, N. K., & Scherer, C. W. (1995). Attaining a state of informed judgments:
Toward a dialectical discourse on risk. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication
Yearbook (Vol. 18, pp. 278– 299). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kan, M. M., & Parry, K. W. (2004). Identifying paradox: A grounded theory of leader-
ship in overcoming resistance to change. Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), 467– 491.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.05.003
Katila, S., & Merilainen, S. (2002). Metamorphosis: From ‘nice girls’ to ‘nice bitches’:
Resisting patriarchal articulations of professional identity. Gender, Work and
Organization, 9(3), 336 – 354. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00163
Kellett, P. M. (1999). Dialogue and dialectics in managing organizational change: The
case of a mission-based transformation. Southern Communication Journal,
64(3), 211 – 231. doi:10.1080/10417949909373135
Keough, C., & Lake, R. (1993). Values as structuring properties in contract negotiations.
In C. Conrad (Ed.), The ethical nexus (pp. 171 – 189). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kerosuo, H. (2011). Caught between a rock and a hard place: From individually experi-
enced double binds to collaborative change in surgery. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(3), 388 – 399. doi:10.1108/09534811111132767
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1978). The midcareer conundrum. Organizational Dynamics,
7(2), 45 – 62. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(78)90037-2
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational paradoxes: Clinical approaches to man-
agement. London: Tavistock Publications.
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M. W., & Boyer, K. K. (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The
impact of organizational values on process innovation. Journal of Operations
Management, 25(4), 871 – 884. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.003
Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it":
Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50 – 77. doi:10.1080/00909880216577
Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the beat–rhythms of change and firm perform-
ance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 160– 184. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.
0767
Kleist, C. (2013). Using Sartre’s critique of dialectical reason for managerial decision-
making. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 341– 352. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1266-x
Knights, D. (1997). Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender
and postmodernism revisited. Organization Studies, 18(1), 1 – 19. doi:10.1177/
017084069701800102
Knox, H., O’Doherty, D. P., Vurdubakis, T., & Westrup, C. (2015). Something hap-
pened: Spectres of organization/disorganization at the airport. Human
Relations, 68(6), 1001–1020. doi:10.1177/0018726714550257
Koene, B. A. S. (2006). Situated human agency, institutional entrepreneurship and insti-
tutional change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(3), 365– 382.
doi:10.1108/09534810610668364
Kolb, D. M. (1987). Corporate ombudsman and organization conflict resolution. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 31(4), 673– 691. doi:10.1177/0022002787031004007
Komporozos-Athanasiou, A., & Fotaki, M. (2015). A theory of imagination for organ-
ization studies using the work of Cornelius Castoriadis. Organization Studies,
36(3), 321 – 342. doi:10.1177/0170840614559258
Koschmann, M., & Laster, N. M. (2011). Communicative tensions of community orga-
nizing: The case of a local neighborhood association. Western Journal of
Communication, 75(1), 28 – 51. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.536965
Kozica, A. M. F., Gebhardt, C., Muller-Seitz, G., & Kaiser, S. (2015). Organizational
identity and paradox: An analysis of the “stable state of instability” of
Wikipedia’s identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(2), 186– 203. doi:10.
1177/1056492614553275
Kramer, M. W. (2004). Toward a communication theory of group dialectics: An ethno-
graphic study of a community theater group. Communication Monographs, 71(3),
311 – 332. doi:10.1080/0363452042000288292
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B. R., & Kataria, N. (2015). Elasticity
and the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together
while we are pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 981 – 1011.
doi:10.5465/amj.2012.0462
Kuhn, T. (2012). Negotiating the micro-macro divide: Thought leadership from organ-
izational communication for theorizing organization. Management
Kurian, P. A., Munshi, D., & Bartlett, R. V. (2014). Sustainable citizenship for a techno-
logical world: Negotiating deliberative dialectics. Citizenship Studies, 18(3– 4),
435 – 451. doi:10.1080/13621025.2014.905284
Ladge, J. J., Clair, J. A., & Greenberg, D. (2012). Cross-domain identity transition during
liminal periods: Constructing multiple selves as professional and mother during
pregnancy. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1449– 1471. doi:10.5465/
amj.2010.0538
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management
Review, 24(4), 691– 710. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.2553248
Langley, A., & Sloan, P. (2011). Organizational change and dialectic processes. In D. M.
Boje, B. Brurnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational
change (pp. 261–275). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203810279.ch18
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of
change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and
flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1 – 13. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.4001
Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing perspectives on process organization
studies. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking, and organizing:
Perspectives on process organization studies (pp. 1 – 26). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Larson, G. S., & Tompkins, P. K. (2005). Ambivalence and resistance: A study of man-
agement in a concertive control system. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 1 –
21. doi:10.1080/0363775052000342508
Lautsch, B. A., Kossek, E. E., & Eaton, S. C. (2009). Supervisory approaches and para-
doxes in managing telecommuting implementation. Human Relations, 62(6),
795 – 827. doi:10.1177/0018726709104543
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2013). Contradiction as a medium and outcome of organ-
izational change: A Foucauldian reading. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 26(3), 556 – 572. doi:10.1108/09534811311328579
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing
new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111– 125.
doi:10.1002/smj.4250131009
Leonardi, P. M., Jackson, M. H., & Diwan, A. (2009). The enactment-externalization
dialectic: Rationalization and the persistence of counterproductive technology
design practices in student engineering. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2),

400 – 420. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.37315471
Leonardi, P. M., Treem, J. W., & Jackson, M. H. (2010). The connectivity paradox: Using
technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed
work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 85 –
105. doi:10.1080/00909880903483599
Levy-Storms, L., Claver, M., Gutierrez, V. F., & Curry, L. (2011). Individualized care in
practice: Communication strategies of nursing aides and residents in nursing
homes. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(3), 271– 289. doi:10.
1080/00909882.2011.585400
Lewis, L. K., Isbell, M. G., & Koschmann, M. (2010). Collaborative tensions:

Practitioners’ experiences of interorganizational relationships. Communication
Monographs, 77(4), 460 – 479. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.523605
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide.
Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760– 776. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.
3707712
Lewis, M. W., Andriopoulos, C., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical leadership to
enable strategic agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58 – 77. doi:10.
1525/cmr.2014.56.3.58
Lewis, M. W., & Kelemen, M. L. (2002). Multiparadigm inquiry: Exploring organiz-
ational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55(2), 251– 275. doi:10.1177/
0018726702055002185
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective:
Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 50(2), 127 – 149. doi:10.1177/0021886314522322
Littler, C. R., & Innes, P. (2004). The paradox of managerial downsizing. Organization
Studies, 25(7), 1159– 1184. doi:10.1177/0170840604046314
Liu, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2004). Negotiating maternity leave expectations: Perceived
tensions between ethics of justice and care. Journal of Business Communication,
41(4), 323 – 349. doi:10.1177/0021943604268174
Long, B. C., Hall, W. A., Bermbach, N., Jordan, S., & Patterson, K. (2008). Gauging visi-
bility: How female clerical workers manage work-related distress. Qualitative
Health Research, 18(10), 1413– 1428. doi:10.1177/1049732308322604
Lorenzo-Molo, C., & Udani, Z. (2013). Bringing back the essence of the ‘S’ and ‘R’ to
CSR: Understanding the limitations of the merchant trade and the white man’s
burden. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 123– 136. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-
1513-1
Lourenco, S. V., & Glidewell, J. C. (1975). A dialectical analysis of organizational con-
flict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(4), 489– 508. doi:10.2307/2392018
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemak-
ing: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–
240. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767217
Lüscher, L. S., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. (2006). The social construction of organ-
izational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
19(4), 491 – 502. doi:10.1108/09534810610676680
Lynch, O. H. (2009). Kitchen antics: The importance of humor and maintaining profes-
sionalism at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(4), 444– 464.
doi:10.1080/00909880903233143
MacKenzie, R. (2008). From networks to hierarchies: The construction of a subcontract-

ing regime in the Irish telecommunications industry. Organization Studies, 29(6),
867 – 886. doi:10.1177/0170840608088706
Manz, C. C., Anand, V., Joshi, M., & Manz, K. P. (2008). Emerging paradoxes in execu-
tive leadership: A theoretical interpretation of the tensions between corruption
and virtuous values. Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 385– 392. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.
2008.03.009
Marcus, A., & Geffen, D. (1998). The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution
prevention in electric generation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1145–
1168. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1998120)19:12 ,1145::AID-SMJ6 . 3.3.
CO;2-2
Markham, A. (1996). Designing discourse: A critical analysis of strategic ambiguity and
workplace control. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(4), 389– 421.
doi:10.1177/0893318996009004002
Marsh, S., & Macalpine, M. (1999). The search for reconciling insights: A “really useful”
tool for managing paradox. Journal of Management Development, 18(8), 642–
651. doi:10.1108/02621719910293756
Martin, D. M. (2004). Humor in middle management: Women negotiating the para-
doxes of organizational life. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2),
147 – 170. doi:10.1080/0090988042000210034
Martin, D. R., O’Brien, J. L., Heyworth, J. A., & Meyer, N. R. (2008). Point counterpoint:
The function of contradictions on an interdisciplinary health care team.
Qualitative Health Research, 18(3), 369 – 379. doi:10.1177/1049732307311119
Maruyama, M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal
processes. American Scientist, 51(2), 164 – 179. doi:10.2307/27838689
Marx, K. (1906). Capital: A critique of political economy (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.
Vol. 1). New York, NY: Modern Library.
Mason, R. O. (1969). A dialectical approach to strategic planning. Management Science,
15(8), 403 – 414. doi:10.1287/mnsc.15.8.B403
Mason, R. O. (1996). Commentary on varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 5(3), 293 –299. doi:10.1177/105649269653015
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Assumptions of majestic metals: Strategy through
dialectics. California Management Review, 22(2), 80 – 88. doi:10.2307/41165323
Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
30(1), 14 – 33. doi:10.2307/2392809
Mathiassen, L. (1998). Reflective systems development. Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems, 10(1), 67 – 118.
McClellan, J. G. (2011). Reconsidering communication and the discursive politics of
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 465– 480. doi:10.
1080/14697017.2011.630508
McDonald, P. (2011). Maoism versus Confucianism: Ideological influences on Chinese
business leaders. Journal of Management Development, 30(7/8), 632– 646. doi:10.
1108/02621711111150164
McGovern, P. (2014). Contradictions at work: A critical review. Sociology, 48(1), 20 – 37.
doi:10.1177/0038038512467711
McGuire, J. B. (1992). A qualitative analysis of dialectical processes in educational organ-
izations. Human Relations, 45(4), 387–410. doi:10.1177/001872679204500405
McGuire, T. (2006). “Paradoxing the dialectic": The impact of patients’ sexual harass-
ment in the discursive construction of nurses’ caregiving roles. Management
McKinlay, A. (2010). Performativity and the politics of identity: Putting Butler to work.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(3), 232– 242. doi:10.1016/j.cpa.2008.01.
011
McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organiz-
ational restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 735 – 752. doi:10.
5465/AMR.2000.3707703
McNamee, L. G., & Peterson, B. L. (2014). Reconciling “third space/place": Toward a
complementary dialectical understanding of volunteer management.

0893318914525472
McPhee, R. D., Poole, M. S., & Iverson, J. (2014). Structuration theory. In L. L. Putnam
& D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication:
Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 75 – 100). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Medved, C. E., Morrison, K., Dearing, J. W., Larson, R. S., Cline, G., & Brummans,
B. H. J. M. (2001). Tensions in community health improvement initiatives:
Communication and collaboration in a managed care environment. Journal of
Meyer, C. B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in post-
merger processes. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 397–419. doi:10.
1177/0021886306289420
Meyers, R. A., & Garrett, D. E. (1993). Contradictions, values, and organizational argu-
ment. In C. Conrad (Ed.), The ethical nexus (pp. 149– 170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Miller, V. D., Jablin, F. M., Casey, M. K., Lamphear-Van Horn, M., & Ethington, C.
(1996). The maternity leave as a role negotiation process. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 8(3), 286 – 309.
Mills, A. J. (2002). Studying the gendering of organizational culture over time:
Concerns, issues and strategies. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(3), 286–
307. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00161
Mills, C. (2007). Ideational elements: A window on sensemaking about change com-
munication. Australian Journal of Communication, 34(2), 13 –38.
Mitroff, I. I., & Emshoff, J. R. (1979). On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical
approach to policy and planning. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 1 – 12.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1979.4289165
Mitroff, I. I., Emshoff, J. R., & Kilmann, R. H. (1979). Assumptional analysis: A meth-
odology for strategic problem solving. Management Science, 25(6), 583– 593.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.25.6.583
Molinsky, A. L. (1999). Sanding down the edges: Paradoxical impediments to organiz-
ational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 8 – 24. doi:10.1177/
0021886399351002
Morrell, K. (2011). Evidence-based dialectics. Organization, 19(4), 461–479. doi:10.
1177/1350508411414229
Mumby, D. K. (2004). Discourse, power and ideology: Unpacking the critical approach.
In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational discourse (pp. 237 – 259). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mumby, D. K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical

approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 19 – 44. doi:10.1177/
0893318905276558
Mumby, D. K. (2013). Organizational communication: A critical approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mumby, D. K. (2014). Critical theory and postmodernism. In L. L. Putnam & D. K.
Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication:
Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed., pp. 101– 126). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of
bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 465– 486. doi:10.

2307/258719
Mumby, D. K., & Stohl, C. (1991). Power and discourse in organization studies: Absence
and the dialectic of control. Discourse & Society, 2(3), 313– 332. doi:10.1177/
0957926591002003004
Murphy, A. G. (1998). Hidden transcripts of flight attendant resistance. Management
Murphy, A. G. (2003). The dialectical gaze exploring: The subject-object tension in the
performances of women who strip. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(3),
305 – 335. doi:10.1177/0891241603032003003
Musson, G., & Duberley, J. (2007). Change, change or be exchanged: The discourse of
participation and the manufacture of identity. Journal of Management Studies,
44(1), 143 – 164. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00640.x
Nasim, S., & Sushil. (2011). Revisiting organizational change: Exploring the paradox of
managing continuity and change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 185–
206. doi:10.1080/14697017.2010.538854
Neimark, M., & Tinker, T. (1986). The social construction of management control
systems. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 11(4), 369– 395. doi:10.1016/
0361-3682(86)90008-5
Neimark, M., & Tinker, T. (1987). Identity and non-identity thinking: Dialectical cri-
tique of the transaction cost theory of the modern corporation. Journal of
Management, 13(4), 661 – 673. doi:10.1177/014920638701300407
Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2001). From global knowledge management to
internal electronic fences: Contradictory outcomes of intranet development.
British Journal of Management, 12(2), 97 – 111. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00188
Newhouse, D. R., & Chapman, I. D. (1996). Organizational transformation: A case study
of two aboriginal organizations. Human Relations, 49(7), 995– 1011. doi:10.1177/
001872679604900706
Newton, T. (1998). Theorizing subjectivity in organizations: The failure of Foucauldian
studies? Organization Studies, 19(3), 415 – 447. doi:10.1177/017084069801900303
Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical
lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391– 1418.
doi:10.1177/0170840609349875
Nicotera, A. M., & Clinkscales, M. J. (2010). Nurses at the nexus: A case study in struc-
turational divergence. Health Communication, 25(1), 32 – 49. doi:10.1080/
10410230903473516
Nicotera, A. M., Mahon, M. M., & Zhao, X. Q. (2010). Conceptualization and
measurement of structurational divergence in the healthcare setting. Journal
of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 362– 385. doi:10.1080/00909882.

2010.514001
Nielsen, J. F. (2008). Models of change and the adoption of web technologies:
Encapsulating participation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 263–
286. doi:10.1177/0021886308314900
Nielsen, R. P. (1996). Varieties of dialectic change processes. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 5(3), 276 – 292. doi:10.1177/105649269653014
Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996a). Calendars and keys: The classification of ‘’home’‘ and
‘’work’‘. Sociological Forum, 11(3), 563 – 582. doi:10.1007/Bf02408393
Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996b). Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday
life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Norander, S., & Harter, L. M. (2011). Reflexivity in practice: Challenges and potentials
of transnational organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 74 –
105. doi:10.1177/0893318911415607
Norton, T. (2009). Situating organizations in politics: A diachronic view of control-
resistance dialectics. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(4), 525– 554.
doi:10.1177/0893318908331099
Norton, T., & Sadler, C. (2006). Dialectical hegemony and the enactment of contradic-
tory definitions in a rural community planning process. Southern Communication
Journal, 71(4), 363 –382. doi:10.1080/10417940601000451
O’Connor, E. S. (1995). Paradoxes of participation: Textual analysis and organizational
change. Organization Studies, 16(5), 769 – 803. doi:10.1177/001872679805100402
O’Dwyer, B. (2005). The construction of a social account: A case study in an overseas aid
agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 279–296. doi:10.1016/j.aos.
2004.01.001
Ogbor, J. O. (2000). Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: Ideology-
critique of entrepreneurial studies. Journal of Management Studies, 37(5), 605–
635. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00196
Ogbor, J. O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal
of Organizational Change Management, 14(6), 590– 608. doi:10.1108/
09534810110408015
Olufowote, J. O. (2008). A structurational analysis of informed consent to treatment:
Societal evolution, contradiction, and reproductions in medical practice. Health
Olufowote, J. O. (2011). A dialectical perspective on informed consent to treatment: An
examination of radiologists’ dilemmas and negotiations. Qualitative Health
Research, 21(6), 839 – 852. doi:10.1177/1049732311402097
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard
Business Review, 82(4), 74 – 81.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present,
and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324– 338. doi:10.5465/
amp.2013.0025
Orlikowski, W. J., & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of
organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143– 169. doi:10.1287/isre.2.
2.143
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization.
Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203– 223. doi:10.2307/258154
Ortu, C. (2008). The denial of class struggle by British governments in their anti-union
discourse (1978– 2007). Critical Discourse Studies, 5(4), 289– 301. doi:10.1080/
17405900802405155
Osborn, C. S. (1998). Systems for sustainable organizations: Emergent strategies, inter-
active controls and semi-formal information. Journal of Management Studies,
35(4), 481 – 509. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00106
Oswick, C., Putnam, L. L., & Keenoy, T. (2004). Tropes, discourse and organizing. In
D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational discourse (pp. 105 – 129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pal, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2013). Breaking the myth of Indian call centers: A postco-
lonial analysis of resistance. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 199–219. doi:10.

1080/03637751.2013.776172
Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (2002). Managing discursive tension: The co-existence of indi-
vidualist and collaborative discourses in Flight Centre. Journal of Management
Studies, 39(8), 1045– 1069. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00323
Pang, A., Cropp, F., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Corporate crisis planning: Tensions,
issues, and contradictions. Journal of Communication Management, 10(4),
371 – 389. doi:10.1108/13632540610714818
Papa, M. J., Auwal, M. A., & Singhal, A. (1995). Dialectic of control and emancipation in
organizing for social change: A multitheoretic study of the Grameen Bank in
Bangladesh. Communication Theory, 5(3), 189– 223. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.
1995.tb00106.x
Peng, K. P., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradic-
tion. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741 – 754. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.54.9.741
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm develop-
ment as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599– 620.
doi:10.5465/amr.1993.9402210152
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in manage-
ment. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313 – 338. doi:10.1177/0149206311410060
Pitts, M., Fowler, C., Kaplan, M., Nussbaum, J., & Becker, J. (2009). Dialectical tensions
underpinning family farm succession planning. Journal of Applied
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and
organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562– 578. doi:10.
2307/258559
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Theories of organizational change and inno-
vation processes. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organ-
izational change and innovation (pp. 374 – 398). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Popham, S. (2003). The intersections of medicine and business: Case studies of contra-
dictions and negotiations in medical-business writing. Business Communication
Quarterly, 66(2), 76 –78. doi:10.1177/108056990306600208
Porsander, L. (2000). Translating a dream of immortality in a (con)temporary order.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 14 – 29. doi:10.1108/
09534810010310212
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London, UK: SAGE.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple

organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18 – 42.
doi:10.2307/259261
Prenkert, F. (2006). A theory of organizing informed by activity theory: The locus of
paradox, sources of change, and challenge to management. Journal of
09534810610676671
Putnam, L. L. (1986). Contradiction and paradoxes in organizations. In L. Thayer (Ed.),
Organizational communication: Emerging perspectives (Vol. I, pp. 151–167).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Putnam, L. L. (2004). Dialectical tensions and rhetorical tropes in negotiations.

Putnam, L. L. (2013). Primary and secondary contradictions: A literature review and
future directions. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 623– 630.
doi:10.1177/0893318913504139
Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Discourse analysis in organizations: Issues and
concerns. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organiz-
ational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 78 –
136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Putnam, L. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2014). Organizational discourse analysis. In L. L.
Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of organizational communi-
Putnam, L. L., Jahn, J., & Baker, J. S. (2011). Intersecting difference: A dialectical per-
spective. In D. K. Mumby (Ed.), Reframing difference in organizational communi-
cation studies: Research, pedagogy, and practice (pp. 31 –53). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in work-
place flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4),
413 – 440. doi:10.1177/0018726713495704
Pye, A. (1993). “Organizing as explaining” and the doing of managing: An integrative
appreciation of processes of organizing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(2),
157 – 168. doi:10.1177/105649269322006
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.). (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a
theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Qureshi, S., & Keen, P. (2005). Activating knowledge through electronic, collaboration:
Vanquishing the knowledge paradox. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 48(1), 40 – 54. doi:10.1109/Tpc.2005.843296
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, out-
comes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375– 409. doi:10.1177/
0149206308316058
Ramarajan, L., & Reid, E. (2013). Shattering the myth of separate worlds: Negotiating
nonwork identities at work. Academy of Management Review, 38(4), 621– 644.
doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0314
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). The coopetition paradox and tension
in coopetition at multiple levels. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 189–
198. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.11.001
Real, K., & Putnam, L. L. (2005). Ironies in the discursive struggle of pilots defending the
profession. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 91 –119. doi:10.1177/
0893318905276561
Reed, M. (2005). Reflections on the ‘realist turn’ in organization and management
studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42(8), 1621– 1644. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2005.00559.x
Repenning, N. P. (2002). A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics
of innovation implementation. Organization Science, 13(2), 109– 127. doi:10.
1287/Orsc.13.2.109.535
Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2001). Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems
that never happened: Creating and sustaining process improvement. California

Management Review, 43(4), 64 – 88. doi:10.2307/41166101
Rice, R. E., & Cooper, S. D. (2010). Organizations and unusual routines: A systems
analysis of dysfunctional feedback processes. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory organizational
consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodo-
logical implications. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 167– 185. doi:10.
1287/isre.10.2.167
Robey, D., & Holmstrom, J. (2001). Transforming municipal governance in global
context: A case study of the dialectics of social change. Journal of Global
Information Technology Management, 4(4), 19 –31. doi:10.1080/1097198X.2001.
10856312
Robey, D., Ross, J. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2002). Learning to implement enterprise
systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(1), 17 – 46. doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.
11045713
Rond, M., & Bouchikhi, H. (2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization
Science, 15(1), 56 – 69. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0037
Rorty, R. (Ed.). (1967). The linguistic turn: Recent essays in philosophical method.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rothenberg, A. (1979). Einstein’s creative thinking and the general theory of relativity:
A documented report. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 136(1), 38 – 43. doi:10.
1176/ajp.136.1.38
Rus, V. (1980). Positive and negative power: Thoughts on the dialectics of power.
Organization Studies, 1(1), 3– 19. doi:10.1177/017084068000100102
Rusaw, A. C. (2000). Uncovering training resistance: A critical theory perspective.
09534810010330896
Ruud, G. (2000). The symphony: Organizational discourse and the symbolic tensions
between artistic and business ideologies. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 28(2), 117 – 143. doi:10.1080/00909880009365559
Ruud, G., & Sprague, J. (2000). Can’t see the (old growth) forest for the logs: Dialectical
tensions in the interpretive practices of environmentalists and loggers.
Communication Reports, 13(2), 55 –65. doi:10.1080/08934210009367725
Sanders, M. L., & McClellan, J. G. (2014). Being business-like while pursuing a social
mission: Acknowledging the inherent tensions in US nonprofit organizing.
Schneider, L. (1971). Dialectic in sociology. American Sociological Review, 36(4), 667–

678.
Schreyögg, G., & Kliesch-Eberl, M. (2007). How dynamic can organizational capabilities
be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic
Management Journal, 28(9), 913 – 933. doi:10.1002/smj.613
Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Crossroads—organizing for fluidity? Dilemmas of
new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251– 1262. doi:10.
1287/orsc.1100.0561
Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of para-
digm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management
Review, 21(2), 529– 557. doi:10.2307/258671

Schweiger, D. M., & Sandberg, W. R. (1989). The utilization of individual capabilities in
group approaches to strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal,
10(1), 31 – 43. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100104
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for
improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical
inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal,
29(1), 51 – 71. doi:10.2307/255859
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experiential effects of
dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic
decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 745– 772. doi:10.
2307/256567
Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Effects of planning aids and presentation media on performance
and affective responses in strategic decision-making. Management Science, 30(3),
263 – 272. doi:10.1287/Mnsc.30.3.263
Schwenk, C. R. (1989). Research notes and communications a meta-analysis on the
comparative effectiveness of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry. Strategic
Management Journal, 10(3), 303 – 306. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100309
Scott, C. W., & Trethewey, A. (2008). Organizational discourse and the appraisal of
occupational hazards: Interpretive repertoires, heedful interrelating, and identity
at work. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(3), 298– 317. doi:10.
1080/00909880802172137
Seal, W., & Ball, A. (2011). Interpreting the dynamics of public sector budgeting: A dia-
lectic of control approach. Financial Accountability & Management, 27(4), 409–
436. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0408.2011.00531.x
Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and insti-
tutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review,
27(2), 222 – 247. doi:10.2307/4134353
Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned
organizational change. In M. S. Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational change and innovation (pp. 73 – 107). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Sharma, G., & Good, D. (2013). The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sen-
segiving for creating positive social change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
49(1), 95 – 122. doi:10.1177/0021886312471375
Sheep, M. L., & Fairhurst, G. T. (2015). Accounting for disequilibrium in knotted
systems of paradoxical tensions. Paper presented at the meeting of the
European Group for Organizational Studies, Athens, Greece.
Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. (in press). Knots in the discourse of inno-
vation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies.
Sherblom, J. C., Keranen, L., & Withers, L. A. (2002). Tradition, tension, and transform-
ation: A structuration analysis of a game warden service in transition. Journal of
Shotter, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2014). In search of phronesis: Leadership and the art of judg-
ment. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(2), 224– 243. doi:10.
5465/amle.2013.0201
Sias, P. M., Heath, R. G., Perry, T., Silva, D., & Fix, B. (2004). Narratives of workplace
friendship deterioration. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(3), 321–
340. doi:10.1177/0265407504042835
Sison, M. D. (2010). Recasting public relations roles: Agents of compliance, control or
conscience. Journal of Communication Management, 14(4), 319– 336. doi:10.
1108/13632541011090437
Smith, A. C. T., & Graetz, F. (2006a). Complexity theory and organizing form dualities.
Management Decision, 44(7), 851 – 870. doi:10.1108/00251740610680569
Smith, A. C. T., & Graetz, F. (2006b). Organizing dualities and strategizing for change.
Strategic Change, 15(5), 231– 239. doi:10.1002/jsc.760
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict,
paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.
Smith, W. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing
strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592– 1623.
doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0932
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equili-
brium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381– 403.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top man-
agement model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5),
522 – 536. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0134
Sorensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational inno-
vation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81 – 112. doi:10.2307/2666980
Sotirin, P., & Gottfried, H. (1999). The ambivalent dynamics of secretarial ‘bitching’:
Control, resistance, and the construction of identity. Organization, 6(1), 57 – 80.
doi:10.1177/135050849961003
Spicer, A., & Sewell, G. (2010). From national service to global player: Transforming the
organizational logic of a public broadcaster. Journal of Management Studies,
47(6), 913 – 943. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00915.x
Stacey, R. D. (1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic
change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495. doi:10.1002/
smj.4250160606
Steimel, S. J. (2010). Dialectical tensions experienced by resettled Sudanese refugees in
mediating organizations. International Journal of Communication, 4(1), 117– 138.
Stevenson, W. B., Bartunek, J. M., & Borgatti, S. P. (2003). Front and backstage processes
of an organizational restructuring effort. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
39(3), 243 – 258. doi:10.1177/0021886303258073
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices:
Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management
Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C., & Seibold, D. R. (2011). Managing organizational change:
Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 24(3), 349 – 367. doi:10.1108/09534811111132749
Stoppelenburg, A., & Vermaak, H. (2008). Defixation as an intervention perspective:
Understanding wicked problems at the Dutch ministry of foreign affairs.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(1), 40– 54. doi:10.1177/1056492608329261
Sturdy, A. (1997). The dialectics of consultancy. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
8(5), 511 – 535. doi:10.1006/cpac.1996.0119
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In
C. P. Smith, J. W. Atkinson, D. C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and
personality: Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 393 – 400). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Surman, E. (2002). Dialectics of dualism: The symbolic importance of the home/work
divide. Ephemera: Theory & politics in organization, 2(3), 209– 223.
Sutherland, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2011). Duality theory and the management of the
change-stability paradox. Journal of Management & Organization, 17(4), 534–
547. doi:10.1017/S1833367200001437
Sydow, J., Lerch, F., Huxham, C., & Hibbert, P. (2011). A silent cry for leadership:
Organizing for leading (in) clusters. Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 328– 343.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.008
Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. (2003). Knowledge, trust, and control: Managing tensions and
contradictions in a regional network of service firms. International Studies of
Management and Organization, 33(2), 69–99. doi:10.1080/00208825.2003.11043679
Symon, G., Buehring, A., Johnson, P., & Cassell, C. (2008). Positioning qualitative
research as resistance to the institutionalization of the academic labour process.
Organization Studies, 29(10), 1315– 1336. doi:10.1177/0170840607086552
Taskin, L., & Devos, V. (2005). Paradoxes from the individualization of human resource
management: The case of telework. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(1), 13 – 24.
doi:10.1007/s10551-005-8710-0
Taylor, B. C. (2005). Postmodern theory. In S. May & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), Engaging
organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp.
113 – 140). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Thatcher, M. S. (2011). Negotiating the tension between the discourses of Christianity
and spiritual pluralism in alcoholics anonymous. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 39(4), 389 – 405. doi:10.1080/00909882.2011.608694
Thompson, M. (2008). Organising and disorganising. London, UK: Tiarchy.
Townley, B., Cooper, D. J., & Oakes, L. (2003). Performance measures and the ration-
alization of organizations. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1045–1071. doi:10.1177/
01708406030247003
Townsley, N. C., & Geist, P. (2000). The discursive enactment of hegemony: Sexual har-
assment and academic organizing. Western Journal of Communication, 64(2),
190 – 217. doi:10.1080/10570310009374671
Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing
employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied
Trethewey, A. (2001). Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife
professional women’s experiences of aging. Management Communication
Quarterly, 15(2), 183 –226. doi:10.1177/0893318901152002
Trethewey, A., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2004). Special issue introduction. Journal of Applied
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational
change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567 – 582. doi:10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
Tullar, W. L., & Kaiser, P. R. (2000). The effect of process training and outcomes in
virtual groups. Journal of Business Communication, 37(4), 408– 426. doi:10.
1177/002194360003700404
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note.
Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 169 –188. doi:10.1002/smj.4250131013
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organ-
izations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510– 540. doi:10.5465/AMR.

1995.9508080329
Van de Ven, A. H., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of organiz-
ation change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 58– 74. doi:10.5465/
amp.2011.63886530
Van den Brink, M., & Stobbe, L. (2009). Doing gender in academic education: The
paradox of visibility. Gender, Work and Organization, 16(4), 451– 470. doi:10.
1111/j.1468-0432.2008.00428.x
Vanheule, S., Lievrouw, A., & Verhaeghe, P. (2003). Burnout and intersubjectivity: A
psychoanalytical study from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 56(3),
321 – 338. doi:10.1177/0018726703056003614
Varman, R., & Chakrabarti, M. (2004). Contradictions of democracy in a workers’ coop-
erative. Organization Studies, 25(2), 183– 208. doi:10.1177/0170840604036913
Vásquez, C., Schoeneborn, D., & Sergi, V. (2015). Summoning the spirits:
Organizational texts and the (dis)ordering properties of communication.
Human Relations, 69(3), 629 –659. doi:10.1177/0018726715589422
Vaughn, M., & Stamp, G. H. (2003). The empowerment dilemma: The dialectic of eman-
cipation and control in staff/client interaction at shelters for battered women.
Communication Studies, 54(2), 154 –168. doi:10.1080/10510970309363277
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and
working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change.
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Towards a dialectic
perspective on formalization in interorganizational relationships: How alliance
managers capitalize on the duality inherent in contracts, rules and procedures.
Wagner, J. A. (1978). The organizational double bind: Toward an understanding of
rationality and its complement. Academy of Management Review, 3(4), 786–
795. doi:10.5465/AMR.1978.4289283
Walsh, J. P., & Fahey, L. (1986). The role of negotiated belief structures in strategy making.
Journal of Management, 12(3), 325–338. doi:10.1177/014920638601200302
Wang, H. L., & Li, J. T. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploi-
tation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dyna-
mism. Journal of Management, 34(5), 925–951. doi:10.1177/0149206308321547
Wasson, C. (2004). The paradoxical language of enterprise. Critical Discourse Studies,
1(2), 175 – 199. doi:10.1080/1740590042000302067
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communi-
cation: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York,
NY: W. W. Norton.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social pyschology of organizing (2nd ed.). Redding, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wendt, R. F. (1998). The sound of one hand clapping: Counterintuitive lessons
extracted from paradoxes and double binds in participative organizations.
0893318998113001
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference.

Whittington, R. (1992). Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial
agency. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 693–712. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
6486.1992.tb00685.x
Whittle, A. (2005). Preaching and practising ‘flexibility’: Implications for theories of
subjectivity at work. Human Relations, 58(10), 1301– 1322. doi:10.1177/
0018726705059859
Whittle, A. (2006). The paradoxical repertoires of management consultancy. Journal of
09534810610676635
Whittle, A., Mueller, F., & Mangan, A. (2008). In search of subtlety: Discursive devices
and rhetorical competence. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 99 –
122. doi:10.1177/0893318908318515
Wieland, S. M. B. (2010). Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity.
0893318910374938
Wieland, S. M. B. (2011). Struggling to manage work as a part of everyday life:
Complicating control, rethinking resistance, and contextualizing work/life
studies. Communication Monographs, 78(2), 162– 184. doi:10.1080/03637751.
2011.564642
Williams, E. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Expressions of identifications: The nature
of talk and identity tensions among organizational members in a struggling
organization. Communication Studies, 63(4), 457– 481. doi:10.1080/10510974.
2011.630439
Willmott, H. (1990). Subjectivity and dialectics of praxis: Opening up the core of labor
process analysis. In D. Knights & H. Willmott (Eds.), Labour process theory (pp.
336 – 378). London, UK: MacMillan.
Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in
virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies,
29(7), 979 – 1002. doi:10.1177/0170840607083105
Wood, J. T., & Conrad, C. (1983). Paradox in the experiences of professional women.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(4), 305– 322. doi:10.1080/
10570318309374128
Wooton, L. M. (1977). The mixed blessings of contingency management. Academy of
Management Review, 2(3), 431 – 441. doi:10.5465/AMR.1977.4281828
Wright, C. R., & Manning, M. R. (2004). Resourceful sensemaking in an administrative

group. Journal of Management Studies, 41(4), 623– 643. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.
2004.00447.x
Yeung, L. (2004). The paradox of control in participative decision-making: Facilitative
discourse in banks. Text, 24(1), 113 – 146. doi:10.1515/Text.2004.001
Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Zeitz, G. (1980). Interorganizational dialectics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1),
72 – 88. doi:10.2307/2392227
Ziegler, J. A. (2007). The story behind an organizational list: A genealogy of wildland
firefighters’ 10 standard fire orders. Communication Monographs, 74(4), 415–

442. doi:10.1080/03637750701716594
Zilber, T. B. (2002). Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings, and
actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal,
45(1), 234 – 254. doi:10.2307/3069294
Ziller, R. C. (1977). Group dialectics: Dynamics of groups over time. Human
Development, 20(5), 293 –308. doi:10.1159/000271563
Zoller, H. M. (2014). Power and resistance in organizational communication. In L. L.
Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communi-
Zorn, T. E., Roper, J., & Richardson, M. (2014). Positive employment practices or reputa-
tional capital?: Tensions inherent in third-party legitimation processes. Management
Communication Quarterly, 28(3), 347–374. doi:10.1177/0893318914530921
View publication stats

Putnam 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Putnam 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive

Article in The Academy of Management Annals · April 2016

L. Putnam Gail Fairhurst

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1941-6520 (Print) 1941-6067 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rama20

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in

Linda L. Putnam, Gail T. Fairhurst & Scott Banghart

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421

Published online: 19 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in

This article presents a constitutive approach to the study of organizational con-

# 2016 Academy of Management

organizational tensions. It concludes by challenging researchers to sharpen

so, we seek to make three contributions to the exiting literature. First, we

Deﬁnitions of Key Constructs

Table 1 Definitions of Constructs

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

To illustrate, the concept of tension permeates the work-life literature because a

point of distinction, dilemmas refer to either-or choices in which one alterna-

In contrast, contradiction refers to polar opposites that are interdependent,

dialectics, interdependent and mutually exclusive poles are continually con-

binds for their employees in structuring job performance. This practice is

programs that legitimate discrimination, and democratic systems that restrict

Key Dimensions of a Constitutive Approach

organizational paradoxes. Thus, we adopt a constitutive approach as our onto-

our ontological approach to paradox, which is rooted in an inherently social

Table 2 Key Dimensions of A Constitutive Approach to Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

W Recognition of actions/interactions that generate

Table 3 Process Outcomes

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

and business; communication; interdisciplinary social sciences; public admin-

Publication Sample for this Review

Table 7 Distinctive Features of the Five Metatheoretical Traditions

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

The Academy of Management Annals

II. Structuration Giddens (1979, 1984)

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

III. Critical Management Marx (1906)

IV. Postmodern Foucault (1977)

Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations

Process-Oriented Systems Studies

Duality theory as replacing dualisms. The research on organizational

driven, continuous or episodic, proactive or reactive, or open or closed in sta-

Dialectics as motors of change and innovation. In the systems literature,

change necessarily occurred through confrontation, conﬂict, and synthesis.

oped into a nexus or integration across multiple organizational arenas (i.e.,

Contradictions as paths to institutional change. In addition to serving as

Traditional approaches in institutional work relied primarily on static models,

being constrained within their institutional contexts). Praxis or consciousness

Contradictions and paradoxes as recursive patterns of change. Research

Contradictions as ebbs and ﬂows in organizational change. Studies