2016/05/13 by Timothy J Hargrave, Timothy J. Hargrave, Andrew H. Van de Ven +1 · 4 citations
Business, Management and Accounting · #Accounting and Organizational Management #Contingency #Contradiction #Dialectic #Epistemology #Management Theory and Practice #Management and Organizational Studies #Social science #Sociology #Structuration theory #Typology
paper · pdf · doi:10.1177/0170840616640843
openalex publication_date 2016/05/13 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
We present a typology and process model that integrate dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Whereas paradox research depicts tensions between contradictory elements as irreconcilable and best managed through acceptance and synergy, the dialectical perspective portrays the relationship of such elements as adversarial and transformed through conflict. Our integrated typology and process model account for both dialectical and paradox approaches to managing contradictions and also identify two approaches, assimilation and adjustment, which combine the two. The model also identifies a key contingency, the expected distribution of power between contradictory elements, as a key influence on actors’ approaches to managing contradictions. For paradox researchers our integrated model emphasizes the need for more attention to the political, institutional, and social contexts of contradictions, practices for managing conflict, and transformation of organizational contradictions. Our integrated model suggests that dialectics researchers pay attention to the strategies managers use to productively manage tensions between contradictory elements, take a contingent view of transformation, and recognize that acceptance of contradiction may play a role in transformation. Hence our integrated model suggests a broadened agenda for both paradox and dialectics researchers.