Paradox as a Metatheoretical Perspective

TLDR

Organizations face competing tensions such as flexibility versus control and exploration versus exploitation, and while contingency theory has long addressed when to emphasize one over the other, the paradox perspective now asks how to engage both simultaneously, yet commonalities across paradox studies remain unclear. The authors aim to energize further use of the paradox perspective by building on past reviews to clarify its role as a metatheory. They contrast the paradox lens with contingency theory, deepen its scope, identify core elements—including assumptions, concepts, interrelationships, and boundary conditions—and illustrate diverse applications to provide a practical guide. The study concludes that as complexity, change, and ambiguity grow, the need for paradox research—and both/and approaches in theory and practice—increases.

Abstract

Organizations are rife with tensions—flexibility versus control, exploration versus exploitation, autocracy versus democracy, social versus financial, global versus local. Researchers have long responded using contingency theory, asking “Under what conditions should managers emphasize either A or B?” Yet increasingly studies apply a paradox perspective, shifting the question to “How can we engage both A and B simultaneously?” Despite accumulating exemplars, commonalities across paradox studies remain unclear, and ties unifying this research community weak. To energize further uses of a paradox perspective, we build from past reviews to explicate its role as a metatheory. Contrasting this lens to contingency theory, we illustrate its metatheoretical nature. We then dive deeper to sharpen the focus and widen the scope of a paradox perspective. Identifying core elements viewed from a paradox perspective—underlying assumptions, central concepts, nature of interrelationships and boundary conditions—offers a guide, informing the practice of paradox research. Next, we illustrate diverse uses of this lens. We conclude by exploring implications and next steps, stressing the rising need for paradox research, as complexity, change, and ambiguity intensify demands for both/and approaches in theory and practice.