Abstract
Keywords
Organizations constantly face paradoxical tensions, described as competing demands that are contradictory yet interdependent (Smith & Lewis, 2011). These tensions are experienced by individuals, teams and the broader organization (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Smith & Lewis, 2011). The layered nature of organizational paradoxes means that they need to be navigated at multiple levels to avoid oversimplistic and incomplete solutions (Tsoukas, 2017).
A
The literature provides examples of paradox mindset practices that integrate cognition and behavior and that enable deep engagement with paradoxes. For example, Miron-Spektor et al. (2018) describe how reframing tensions and embracing contradictions can foster innovation, while Varela et al. (2017) emphasize the enacted nature of cognition, highlighting how intentional engagement with paradoxes supports adaptive and creative responses. Extending these conceptual insights, Boemelburg et al. (2023) provide empirical evidence that paradox mindset can be developed through behavioral engagement, with leaders fostering it by encouraging followers to navigate and integrate competing demands in their daily work.
Recent research has expanded the concept of a paradox mindset beyond the individual level, recognizing that it can also occur within teams and organizations (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Miron-Spektor et al., 2022; Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017). Studies in organizational psychology and organizational behavior have framed mindset not only as an individual-, but also as an organizational-level phenomenon. Organizational mindset is evidenced through norms, policies, practices and leadership messages that influence motivation and behavior of individuals and teams in the workplace (Canning et al., 2020; Carpini & Oc, 2022; Murphy & Reeves, 2019; Schneider & Pulakos, 2022). This suggests that paradox mindset may not limited to individuals but can also be evidenced at team- and organizational-levels. This study positions mindset as pertaining to teams and organizations as well as to the individual.
Notwithstanding research that suggests the benefits of a paradox mindset for navigating paradox (e.g., Liu et al., 2020; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Smith & Tushman, 2005), there has been scant exploration of the phenomenon beyond the individual level of analysis. Recent examples from both strategy literature (Farjoun & Fiss, 2022) and paradox literature suggest that paradox mindset is not confined to individuals or leaders (Batool et al., 2023; Boemelburg et al., 2023; Fredberg, 2014) but also occurs within teams (Miron-Spektor et al., 2022), for example, via integrating diverse perspectives. Distinctions and potential overlaps between paradox mindset at the individual and organization level remain theoretical and vague (Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017; Waldman et al., 2019), a gap that we address in this study. Furthermore, paradox research has identified limited understanding of the processes and practices by which individual paradox mindset might be “scaled up” to the team or the organization, or of the multilevel interactions by which paradoxes are navigated across organizational levels (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Papachroni & Heracleous, 2020). Miron-Spektor and Paletz (2017) call for empirical research to better understand this phenomenon.
This research seeks to examine paradox mindset and to explore how it flows across the organization. The overarching research question guiding the study is:
Based on our analysis, we propose a Multilevel Paradox Mindset (MLPM) framework, comprising paradox mindset practices at individual, team and organization levels and flows between the levels.
This research provides three contributions to the paradox mindset literature. The first contribution is an extended conceptualization of paradox mindset as a multilevel phenomenon that is evident at individual, team and organization levels, hence adding to emerging evidence of team level paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2022) and uncovering new evidence of paradox mindset practices at organization level. A second contribution is uncovering the specific interactions of paradox mindset flows across levels, namely: disseminating and scaling. A third contribution is in our extended multilevel conceptualization of paradox mindset that incorporates the notion of intent, highlighting the importance of intentionally recognizing and engaging with paradoxes at all levels rather than avoiding or dismissing them. In the next section, the relevant literature is reviewed. We then describe the research method and explain data collection and analysis. We then propose key multilevel paradox mindset practices and interactions and set forth the MLPM framework. We conclude by discussing theoretical and practical implications of the research.
Theoretical Underpinning
Paradox Mindset
A paradox mindset involves learning “to value, accept, and feel comfortable with tensions” and to see them as opportunities rather than as threats (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018, p. 26, 27). It involves both experiencing paradoxical tensions and reframing those tensions from “either/or” to “both/and.”
Paradox mindset has been theorized as an individual level trait (Keller et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2020; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2024), state (Zheng et al., 2018) and skill or ability that can be cultivated or developed (Batool et al., 2023; Boemelburg et al., 2023; de Ruiter & Thomaes, 2023; Yin, 2022). A paradox mindset seen as a trait or state suggests that some individuals are naturally inclined to accept and thrive in situations when they are faced with competing priorities or tensions. These individuals are comfortable with paradoxical situations and naturally seek out ways to balance contradictions and apparent polarities. A paradox mindset has been also conceptualized as a skill or ability that can be developed in leaders (Batool et al., 2023; Boemelburg et al., 2023). “This suggests that individuals can actively engage in practices and learn to identify, reframe, and engage with paradoxical tensions in their environment” (Boemelburg et al., 2023, p. 1). This means they can generate new tensions and redefine the links between opposing forces while purposefully surfacing the assumptions underpinning the apparent polarities (Storey & Salaman, 2009). Individuals equipped with a paradox mindset can evaluate paradoxes as complex interdependencies rather than as competing interests (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013); they are more likely to evaluate contradictory demands as pluralities. This means they seek ways to give priority to “both” possibilities, rather than viewing them as binary alternatives and rejecting one over the other.
Paradox Mindset as a Multilevel Phenomenon
Recent research has begun conceptualizing paradox mindset as a collective-, as distinct from an individual-level phenomenon, and one that occurs within organizations and teams (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Miron-Spektor et al., 2022; Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017). This means that not only individuals, but also teams and organizations can have a paradox mindset.
Among the few studies that explore paradox mindset beyond the individual level, Andriopoulos and Lewis's (2010) research refers to the notion of “a collective mindset of paradox” p. 117). These authors argue, based on empirical evidence, that management of paradoxes is a shared responsibility that occurs across the various organizational levels. At the organizational level, a collective paradox mindset is exemplified in embracing long-term adaptability as well as short-term survival via strategic decisions and diverse projects. At the group level, teams integrate diverse perspectives to foster innovation and efficiency. The authors call for future studies to explore how companies might develop and sustain paradox mindset throughout the organization.
More recent research suggests that a “both/and” mindset must be shared to be impactful. For instance, Miron-Spektor and Paletz (2017) found that, in a context of learning and innovation, teams develop a collective paradoxical frame through sensemaking processes that are influenced by both individual team members’ cognitions and behaviors and also by the interactions between them. The study suggests that collective paradox mindset may develop from a combination of individual cognitions and social interactions but does not explain the flows by which this might occur. Miron-Spektor et al.'s (2022) empirical study examined how teams adopt paradox mindset (frames) by embracing differences among members rather than denying conflicting perspectives. The study found creativity benefits when teams adopt paradoxical frames through engaging in idea elaboration, involving the integration of diverse ideas and perspectives. Navigating paradox, thus, can become a shared capability in which organizational members adopt a paradox mindset to jointly navigate tensions and complexities. There is also emerging research to show how an individual's paradox mindset can affect the paradox mindset of others. For example, a leader's paradox mindset can influence followers’ paradox mindset (Boemelburg et al., 2023).
Outside the paradox mindset research, organizational psychology and organizational behavior research have identified that organizations have mindsets. Organizational mindset is evidenced through norms, policies, practices and leadership messages that influence motivation and behavior of individuals and teams in the workplace (Canning et al., 2020; Carpini & Oc, 2022; Murphy & Reeves, 2019; Schneider & Pulakos, 2022). Furthermore, de Ruiter and Thomaes (2023) explore how our mindset beliefs, actions, and reactions are shaped by and interconnected to our interactions with others, suggesting formation of a team or collective mindset. They argue that mindsets are not fixed traits but emerge through real-life experiences and social contexts. This implies that mindsets, actions, and situations influence each other in a dynamic, ongoing way, rather than one simply causing the other. The study draws on concepts from systems thinking and enactivism to explain how mindsets and actions coevolve in daily life and social interactions (De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007; Varela et al., 1991).
Combining the notion of organizational mindset with the insights from paradox mindset research, we argue that team- and organization-level paradox mindset can be conceptualized and may be enacted and flow between levels, for example, via strategic narratives and organizational values that champion multiple perspectives.
Enacting a Paradox Mindset
Studies suggest that a paradox mindset serves as a tool to help employees not only cope with contradictory tensions, but also to leverage these tensions for growth (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). A paradox mindset recognizes paradoxes and also actively and intentionally responds to them in a way that embraces contradiction. It integrates clear purpose with tangible actions and behaviors, bridging thought, motivation, and practice.
The concept of enactment is helpful in shedding light on the links between (paradox) mindset and behavior. Unlike mere actions, enactment is an intentional process linking cognition and behavior. The theory of “enaction” (Varela et al., 2017) enriches this understanding by positing that cognition is inseparable from action. This deliberate nature of enactment is crucial for effectively navigating and leveraging paradoxes. Rather than reacting to a paradox and immediately proposing steps to manage it, enacting a paradox mindset allows for an intervening pause, acknowledgement and deep engagement with the paradox before responding. This process strengthens the connection between cognitive processes, individual actions, and the organizational environment, making enactment essential for navigating paradoxes effectively.
By enacting a paradox mindset individuals and organizations continuously reinterpret tensions in their environment, transforming conflicts into opportunities for innovation and growth. This process involves enacted sense-making, where individuals and organizations not only think about paradoxes but actively engage with them through deliberate practices. This engagement through practice fosters an adaptive environment where paradoxes drive innovative solutions and sustained growth. Boemelburg et al. (2023) reinforce this view by showing that paradox mindset is most effectively developed through behavioral engagement, with paradoxical leadership shaping mindset not just through cognitive framing but by encouraging followers to enact paradoxes through ambidextrous tasks.
An enacted paradox mindset is also an intentional effort that turns underlying attitudes into concrete behaviors and influences social practices and interactions. Individuals who adopt a paradox mindset intentionally frame contradictions, not as problems to be solved or eliminated, rather as opportunities for exploration, growth and innovation. This shift in perspective enables organizations to harness paradoxes as catalysts for progress and sustained innovation.
Insights into Multilevel Paradox Mindset Interactions From Organizational Learning Literature
Insights from organizational learning literature may shed light on our understanding of multilevel paradox mindset interactions. In particular, Crossan et al.'s (1999, 2011) framework on multilevel learning offers a useful and structured approach to multilevel processes and interactions. Their notion of feedback and feedforward interactions illustrate how learning can be transferred via top-down and bottom-up flows. “Feedback” refers to the transference of organizational learning to individuals and teams, whereas “feedforward” enables transference of learning from individuals to teams and to organization. More recent research identifies specific mechanisms and actors by which the learning flows between levels. Wiewiora et al. (2020) found a range of drivers that enabled the flow of learning via feedback and feed-forward directions. Examples from this study include leaders' use of position of power to restrict or promote individual ideas for organizational improvement (evidencing feed-forward flow of individual to organizational learning), or project managers, who by creating an environment for the team to voice opinions and share knowledge, help facilitate learning flow between individual and team, hence unlocking the feed-forward flow of individual to team learning. These examples illustrate how individual to team to organization-level flows occur and provide insights that may inform our understanding of multilevel flows that occur when navigating paradox.
These insights from the multilevel organizational learning literature help conceptualize paradox mindset interactions between the levels. This literature may also help in in better understanding of the interactions between the levels associated with a paradox mindset. Drawing on Crossan et al.’s (1999, 2011) notion of feedback and feedforward flows, our study examines the interplay between paradox mindset levels. In particular, our focus is on understanding how paradox mindset cascades from individual to team to the organization and back.
Notwithstanding these insights, few studies have explored paradox mindset across levels. The field lacks a nuanced understanding of organizational paradox mindset and how it informs effective responses to paradoxical tensions (Schad et al., 2016). Recent paradox research has enhanced the understanding of paradox mindset as a collective phenomenon (Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017, 2022) and as helpful in navigating paradoxes. Yet, a gap exists in the explanation of how paradox mindset occurs at each level and of the flows between levels (Schad et al., 2016). This study seeks to address this vital gap by examining paradox mindset practices at different levels of the organization, and the interactions between levels. We aim to contribute to the paradox mindset research by unpacking the paradox mindset phenomenon using the following research question:
Research Design
This research used an in-depth single case study approach to better understand and unpack how paradox mindset is practiced and flows across organization levels. Based on the exploratory nature of the study and guided by Rashid et al.'s (2019) case study method, an abductive approach was adopted. We drew from existing paradox studies to strengthen the theoretical aspect of the analysis and also allowed tentative findings to emerge from the data.
Research Setting
The study focuses on FinCo, an established mid-sized Australian superannuation fund, selected purposively because it was undergoing a significant transformation that offered an ideal context to study paradox mindset at multiple levels. Discussions with the CEO, prior to selecting the organization, had revealed her to have a paradox mindset. During those discussions she demonstrated awareness of the need to maintain core organizational values and strengths while at the same time showing appetite for organizational change and growth. She acknowledged the contradictory nature of these priorities and their impact through the organization.
The financial services sector in Australia was ideally suited to study the management of paradoxes because of the dynamic changes facing the industry and the strong environmental discontinuity, including an increasing focus on governance. The release of the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in February 2019 (Hayne, 2019) further underscored the need for strategic realignment within the industry, including enhanced governance and member-focused initiatives. Key recommendations from the Commission, such as limitations on member acquisitions and stricter regulatory oversight, prompted reevaluation of FinCo's business model and operational strategies. The regulatory shifts, coupled with intensified competition and technological disruptions, drove an innovation strategy and an aggressive agenda aimed at digital expansion, innovation and product diversification. The organization recognized the imperative to nurture a culture of innovation and adaptability to meet evolving member expectations and industry dynamics.
The study spanned from April 2019 to May 2020, capturing a critical period of transition for FinCo. Table 1 summarizes staffing levels at study commencement, indicating that 15% of total permanent full time staff participated in this study.
Study Participants and Data Collected.
*Documents used to analyze and categorize the data (e.g., spreadsheets, tables, slides) are not included in the count.
Stability and Change Paradox at FinCo
The context of the study was the stability-change paradox that reflected the tension between preserving core values and a strong customer focus (stability) while simultaneously pursuing growth and efficiency (change). The stability-change paradox was evident across organizational-, team-, and individual levels, each presenting unique challenges.
At the organizational level, FinCo faced the challenge of balancing its long-standing tradition of high-quality customer service with the emerging need for future-oriented growth. The company's transformation demanded greater efficiencies and a new focus on growth while maintaining strong member relationships. This required not just operational changes but a cultural shift including preserving core values like customer service, while evolving the traditional service delivery approach. The stability-change paradox was also evidenced in FinCo's efforts to uphold customer-centricity by maintaining the intimacy and excellence of customer service, while also embracing growth and transformation. At the team level, the challenge was to harmonize collective efforts towards achieving growth targets while upholding the longstanding commitment to customer service excellence. Teams had to collaborate to integrate growth objectives with service quality, ensuring that neither aspect was compromised. For example, teams responsible for driving innovation and growth had to work closely with those focused on maintaining customer satisfaction and loyalty. At the individual level, employees integrated the evolving organizational priorities with their ongoing dedication to high-quality service. Conflicting key performance indicators (KPIs) reflected this tension, as employees were expected to support growth initiatives while continuing to prioritize member satisfaction.
Data Collection Method
Semi-structured interviews conducted between April 2019 and May 2020 were the primary source of data. Before fully launching our fieldwork, we conducted a quasi-pilot study to test interview questions with an initial set of participants. This led to a revised interview guide. In total, 36 interviews, each lasting 45 to 75 min, were conducted with 12 participants. We interviewed respondents from different hierarchical and functional levels of the organization, including executives, managers and nonmanagers (Table 2). The in-depth nature of the study and the focus on saturation of information were deemed more important than obtaining a large sample size (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006). Data saturation was deemed to occur when interviews produced little or no change to the emerging themes (Guest et al., 2006).
Comparisons Undertaken in Cross-Level Analysis of the Interviews.
Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The interviews afforded insights into participants’ unique perspectives and interpretation of their own experience (Kvale, 1996). We took notes, made field observations and typed our reflections before, during and after each interview. These field observations helped us comprehend the context of the interview and background of the interviewee and pointed to factors of potential importance to our findings. We also gathered a variety of secondary data, including online archival data and internal corporate documents. This enhanced the robustness of our data and triangulated the information provided by the interviews. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee and participant consent was obtained before data collection began.
Data Analysis
Our analysis approach was abductive and involved integrating existing theories while remaining flexible enough to develop new insights and frameworks from the empirical and case analysis. The abductive process takes time for familiarization with the research evidence (Earl Rinehart, 2021). Having access to participants over three timeframes rather than a single instance allowed us to identify inconsistencies, potential biases and memory lapses. Data analysis commenced immediately after the first interview and continued throughout the study. Collection and analysis proceeded simultaneously and separately in iterative waves, allowing for adjustments and the testing of concepts and themes against subsequent data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
In Step 1, interviews were manually transcribed and loaded into NVivo 11 software. This step included the lead researcher reading each transcript several times. The first reading was open-ended, with no framework and led to the identification of evidence of paradox mindset among participants. In Step 2, we systematically worked through the data line by line (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), segmenting and labeling the data (Creswell, 2009). In this open coding procedure we relied largely on participants’ terminology and made little attempt to synthesize themes or combine categories. In vivo codes served to authentically reflect participants’ experiences in enacting paradox mindset.
We then undertook a second round of coding, making connections between open codes, clustering them together and creating several overarching thematic categories. Simple visual aids, including Post-it notes® and charts, assisted this process. The focus was on identifying recurring themes and developing a code tree and an inventory of central themes. Findings from the analysis supported evidence from the existing literature suggesting that paradox mindset occurs at different levels of the organization. Patterns of interactions also revealed how paradox mindset cascades across levels.
We grounded our research design in Klein and Kozlowski's (2000) approach which emphasizes that organizational phenomena often emerge from individual-level cognition and interaction and can be meaningfully explored through individual-level data. Following this guidance, we selected participants whose roles enabled them to observe and reflect on dynamics not only within their own work but also across teams and the broader organization. This referential strategy allowed us to examine how paradox was discussed and how paradox mindset was enacted across levels, without claiming to measure it at higher levels through aggregation. Our approach aligns with recent qualitative studies (e.g., Wiewiora, 2023; Wiewiora et al., 2020) that use individual interviews to explore multilevel phenomena, such as project learning and organizational tensions. It is worth noting that this study distinguishes between levels as applied to hierarchy (i.e., lower-level employees, mid-level management, senior leaders) and organization levels (i.e., individual, team, organization). As such, coding at “organization level” represents processes, structure, ways of doing things, collective organizational voice and routines; “team level” represents individuals’ accounts of their projects, teams and groups; and “individual level” refers to individual people, regardless of their role or level within the organizational hierarchy. For example, an individual-level perspective was captured through narratives that reflected the individual's personal account of how they experienced and responded to stability-change paradox (“You could almost look at it as two halves of the brain maybe, keeping tabs on this, but thinking forward, ahead” P10). The team level was captured through descriptions of joint experiences and actions, for example, “We take on everyone's ideas as valid, and no one really gets bothered if one idea isn’t taken on or another one is…” (P7). Attention was paid to capture instances where participants explained joint accounts such as “we,” “us,” “our,” “together.” The organization level was captured when reference was made to organizational practices and how these facilitate both stability and change, for example, “We’re slowly moving past the point where the organization is just focused on respecting the past … and starting to do the work of the future” (P2). Figure 1 illustrates a snapshot of the data-structuring technique, based on Gioia et al. (2013), as applied to the findings.
Snapshot of Data-Structuring Technique (Based on Gioia et al., 2013).
Following several iterations and discussions with the research team, concepts were grouped into a number of “second order” themes. This process resulted in the reduction of 100+ first-order categories to 18 s-order themes. The aim was to establish aggregate categories of meaning that would take the inquiry beyond coding and retrieval (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) and move the analysis beyond mere description toward explanation. We continued to iterate, moving back and forth between distilling and systematically combining the data while simultaneously seeking insights from reading the related literatures (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).
Coding included the observed initiation point of the paradox mindset (whether at the individual, team or organization level), and the direction of flows throughout the organization. To shed further light on the multilevel aspect and develop an in-depth understanding of the cross-level flows, we sought guidance from well-regarded method studies (Tuthill et al., 2020; Vogl et al., 2018). In theorizing from individual to team and organization level, we adopted a dual approach to data triangulation. Firstly, we gathered and compared individual perspectives focusing on individual experiences, perceptions, and attitudes toward paradox mindset at all organizational levels. Then, we triangulated these individual perspectives by comparing them with secondary data such as organizational reports, performance metrics, and cultural artifacts to construct a holistic picture of the organizational landscape and identify underlying patterns or trends. This data triangulation allowed us to get closer to the MLPM phenomenon and provided better understanding of it. Our prolonged data collection timeframe of 13 months was also valuable, in that it allowed us to capture changes, trends, and nuances within the organizational context that provided a more comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the evolving organizational level paradox mindset. Table 3 illustrates examples of paradox mindset at different organizational levels when navigating tensions underpinning the stability-change paradox.
Examples of Paradox Mindset at Different Organization Levels When Navigating Tensions Underpinning Stability-Change Paradox.
The outcome of this process was a tentative multilevel paradox mindset framework that offers suggestions of relationships, connections and plausible theoretical associations.
Findings
Overview of the Findings
Three key findings emerged from the research. First, data provided evidence of paradox mindset occurring on individual, team, and organization levels. Second, data revealed six paradox mindset practices, two at each organizational levels: (a) acknowledging the paradox and (b) facilitating paradox mindset across the organization (at organization level), (c) joint sense-making and (d) working through paradox together (at team level), (e) meaning-making and (f) engaging with paradox (at individual level). There was also evidence to suggest that participants deliberately engaged in those practices. Third, the data revealed instances of interactions between the levels, which we labeled as scaling and disseminating. These interactions reveal how a paradox mindset at one level (e.g., individual) can cascade to other levels (e.g., team, organization). These findings combined led to the development of a novel multilevel paradox mindset framework (Figure 2) that illustrates intentional paradox mindset practices and flows between the levels.
Multilevel Paradox Mindset Framework.
Occurrence of Paradox Mindset at Individual, Team, and Organization Level
Data provided evidence that paradox mindset occurs at individual, team, and organization levels. Our data pointed that paradox mindset is underpinned by the notion of intent, whereby individuals, teams and organization intentionally engage with the paradox and take deliberate actions to navigate it. This intentionality was evident across all three levels of paradox mindset. At the individual level, paradox mindset was enacted in deliberate efforts by organizational members to accept the contradictions, and in their endeavors to pivot across multiple perspectives for a better understanding of them. At the team level, paradox mindset was revealed in teams’ deliberate seeking out of diverse interests and viewpoints. At the organization level, it was enacted in the organization deliberately taking an expansive view that reflected more holistic considerations. Table 4 provides examples of paradox mindset at different organization levels when navigating tensions underpinning the stability-change paradox. Drawing from the empirical insights, discussed below, we offer definitions of paradox mindset at individual, team and organization levels. We define team paradox mindset as the extent to which the team intentionally seeks out and embraces competing priorities. We define organization paradox mindset as the extent to which the organization welcomes “both/and” possibilities. At individual level, we add to the existing definition of a paradox mindset by Miron-Spektor et al.'s “the extent to which one is accepting of and energized by tensions” (2018, p. 26), by incorporating the notion of intentionality that frames paradox mindset in consistently active and deliberate rather than passive terms. Accordingly, we define individual level paradox mindset as the extent to which one is intentionally accepting of and energized by tensions.
MLPM Interactions: Representative Quotations
Individual-Level Paradox Mindset Practices
At the individual level, a paradox mindset unfolded via the practice of It's a need to get underneath things, so that instead of just taking a surface attribute, you define what's really important within that attribute and have a way of reframing it so that you can deliver it in a different environment or with a different mechanism or in a different way. (P2) I tend to look at the environment first: “What's happening in the organization?” I tend to look at the cost–benefit of it as well. And then I … put myself in the shoes of the employee. And I also do put myself in the shoes of the next person up from me as well. (P7)
All our plans are to 2022, when we might lose default status … So, there's people leaving already because they feel like, “I don’t know how long I really have at this company, so I might as well take something else now.” It's very unstable. I’m okay with it. I enjoy what I’m doing now; I’m just thinking about the present. (P4)
Individuals revealed how they engaged with paradox in their intentional use of language to frame a nonbinary response that creatively reframed a potentially negative situation as an opportunity and offered a “silver lining” perspective that would coexist with a seemingly contradictory tension. For example, for some individuals, stability could be maintained by a focus on enjoying their work in the present, despite the negative environment associated with significant redundancies and uncertainty, and were able to reframe the offshoring of the administration division to India as a performance-enhancing opportunity for the future: We need to learn to view the offshore resources, even though they are an external vendor, as an extension of our own resources. We need to think about how we can best work to get the most benefit from having an onshore–offshore presence. And that might be things like time zones, and because they’re there in India, four-and-a-half hours behind … maybe there's some processes that they can do that conveniently fit in that time zone? (P3)
Team-Level Paradox Mindset Practices
At the team level, a paradox mindset unfolded through practices of
Data demonstrated that teams deliberately sought ways to jointly develop a collective understanding of the paradox by sharing convergent and divergent ideas, reinforcing consistent messages that cemented understanding about the paradox, and sharing stories that indicated conflicting priorities to be addressed. For P8, reinforcing a consistent message involved articulating the stability-change paradox through framing the new organizational direction in terms of the ideal member: It's all focused around that ideal member … trying to help the team get on board with it. And repetition: the more we hear a certain thing or the more people in the business are thinking or talking a certain way, the easier it is, or the more likely it is for the rest of the team to jump on board with that. (P8) Trying to think about those problems in a different way and actually taking the challenges of both and working out what potentially is complementary across them in ways that maybe you wouldn’t expect to be. And how can you take all of it and present it back to people in a different way that actually achieves both outcomes and gets people more comfortable themselves that what they are doing is fair and reasonable for both the employer and the members that they’re servicing? (P5)
Everyone is working towards the same thing. We take on everyone's ideas as valid, and no one really gets bothered if one idea isn’t taken on or another one is … we’ve all had a say in how we do things differently or influence our processes. (P10) What my team (sales) might have said in the past is: “We don’t think that it's a good use of our time going to this workplace at x”. Whereas now we might say, “Hey, you guys (service-education) are going out for this focus, and you’ve got a list of appointments”, or “You’re having a seminar that's targeting pre-retirees or people over 50”, or whatever the case might be. Then, as a team, we might say, “Okay, well, that's a good use of our time to support that initiative”. (P3)
Organization-Level Paradox Mindset Practices
At the organization level a paradox mindset unfolded via two practices:
The (legacy retention) focus is obviously still the priority, but that's now expanded, and it's going to be a focus on acquisitions, so getting new members on board … The Board is meeting in April and there's going to be some more clear strategies. (P11)
We have what we call sales pods, so they’re cross-functional teams … There is no leader of that particular group; what there is, [is] three different teams from across the business; they have representation. Behind the scenes we have a person nominated to that group to just facilitate the discussion, to make sure [it] happens, because I just wasn’t comfortable that that would work totally by itself; but there is no leader, no captain of that, no team leader, no manager. And it is cross-functional, and everyone has slightly conflicting responsibilities or slightly conflicting KPIs, as you would get in an organization. Ultimately, they all contribute. (P5)
Interactions Between Individual, Team, and Organization Levels
Data revealed instances of top-down and bottom-up interactions between individual, team and organization levels when enacting paradox mindset, which we labeled
The communication is terrific … The CEO was talking about acquisitions (change); we know that in April there is going to be an acquisition strategy [as well as a retention strategy]. So, therefore, we can start to get ahead of the game, “Ok, let's have a target on getting new members on board”. (P10)
I share most of the documents that I get with the team, talk through them. I make sure my team have close understanding of what's happening in other areas of the business, so I get them to listen in on phone calls through the Contact Centre … exposing them to other areas of the business that they don’t particularly work on … even showing them what the Risk and Safety and Compliance team are working on … We have to have a members’ view [stability of member services] as well as business understanding [change towards commercial focus] so that we can drive improvements or offer suggestions. (P9)
We’ve introduced balanced scorecards, so that in and of itself is a tool to get people to think about multiple things simultaneously. I’ve started a narrative around our two key challenges. One is costs, and the other is member retention or member growth, and so a lot of the narrative has “and” implicit in it anyway, because, as you say, we’ve got to reduce our costs, and we have to give our members the best experience possible. So that in itself, I think, automatically starts to engender the concept of an “and” mentality. (P2)
In this example the organizational-level scorecard helped teams and individuals to engage with paradoxical demands in their daily work. The scorecards served as a mechanism for translating high-level priorities into team and individual objectives, reinforcing the “both/and” logic across levels. By this reinforcement of paradox mindset within the daily rhythm of FinCo's operations and culture, new behaviors and mindsets aligned with navigating complexity and competing demands were supported.
Some of the insights and the tools [I’ve] created, and the learnings off the back of that, have then spread out into the rest of the business, and we’ve become quite relied upon for a whole range of insights to where I think we are a bit of a go-to for some “what if” scenarios. (P3)
Scaling interactions at FinCo were also facilitated through leadership practices that encouraged a “bubble up of information” and insights from individuals and teams. P2 explained: We develop teams cross-functionally [to get spread of old and new employee inputs] and what that allows is Front Office insights to bubble up through the Executive Team. There's probably a lot more just talking to people and walking the floor and trying to be engaged … and that helps as well ensure that you get that bubble up of information. (P2)
At FinCo, scaling arose when individuals externalized their interpretation of paradox, shared it with others, refined and iterated it within the team. P10 described how personal insights were translated into collective practice: We just bounce ideas off each other: I’ll say, ‘This is something that I found worked’ … and people try it out. And they will come back in and go; Remember we were talking about this, this came up for me and I said that, and it went by seamlessly’. (P10)
Discussion and Conclusion
The objective of this study is to better understand the multilevel nature of paradox mindset and gain insight into how it is evidenced at each organization level and flows between levels. We discuss the findings next and then present theoretical and practical contributions.
Discussion of Findings
Our analysis demonstrated that paradox mindset occurs at individual, team and organization level. Adding to existing evidence of paradox mindset practices at individual level (Liu et al., 2020) and emerging evidence of team level paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2022), we found new evidence of paradox mindset practices at all three levels. Our analysis also revealed that a paradox mindset flows between organization levels via scaling and disseminating interactions.
Bottom-up paradox mindset flows from individual to team and to organization via scaling interactions.
Theoretical Contributions
By introducing the MLPM framework, we seek to make the following contributions to the paradox mindset literature. First, we extend existing conceptualizations of paradox mindset to reveal its enactment at individual, team and organization levels. Second, we draw from multilevel learning literature and empirical data to unpack paradox mindset interactions between levels. Third, our study adds to the conceptualization of paradox mindset as an intentional, deliberate phenomenon in which actors enact their paradox mindset through a series of practices.
Our first contribution extends the existing research on paradox mindset by providing evidence of its multilevel nature illustrated in a framework, captured in Figure 2. We build on the existing paradox mindset research that has begun conceptualizing paradox mindset as a collective phenomenon, not restricted only to individuals (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Miron-Spektor et al., 2022; Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017). Mirroring recent organizational psychology and organizational behavior studies that have framed mindset not only as an individual but also an organizational-level phenomenon (e.g., Canning et al., 2020; Carpini & Oc, 2022; Murphy & Reeves, 2019; Schneider & Pulakos, 2022), this study positions paradox mindset as a multilevel phenomenon. To support this conceptualization, we adopted a referential strategy (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), drawing on participants whose roles enabled them to reflect on dynamics across individual, team, and organizational levels. This interpretive approach aligns with recent qualitative studies (e.g., Wiewiora, 2023; Wiewiora et al., 2020) and allowed us to explore how paradox mindset is enacted and interpreted across levels, without claiming to measure it at each level. Multilevel research is rare in the paradox mindset and paradox management fields. Jarzabkowski et al. (2013) process model illustrates how paradoxes are nested within and cascade across levels. Similarly, our research demonstrates how paradox mindset unfolds on individual, team or organizational levels and how it cascades as interactions between the levels. Our framework is illustrated in Figure 2.
Our second contribution further adds to the multilevel understanding of paradox mindset by identifying top-down and bottom-up interactions between the levels. Insights from multilevel learning research, in particular the notion of feedback and feed-forward learning (Crossan et al., 1999, 2011; Hannah & Lester, 2009; Wiewiora et al., 2020), offered a useful lens which helped distill two multilevel interactions—disseminating and scaling. Disseminating involves efforts aimed at cascading paradox mindset from organization to team and to individual levels by raising awareness about the paradox across all levels. It also involves intent to share and build paradox mindset from individual to team and to organization level. Scaling helps spread individual-level paradox mindset enactment to team and organization levels. Scaling interactions also help embed paradox mindset into the organizational narrative so that it becomes established as a norm within the organization. These paradox mindset interactions are empirically grounded in our qualitative data and offer a more nuanced understanding of how it becomes embedded in organizational narratives and norms. To our knowledge, these more granular multilevel interactions have not yet been discussed explicitly in paradox research. Miron-Spektor and Paletz (2017, 2022) shed some light on the mechanisms that link individual with team paradox mindset, leading to enhanced team creativity. Our contribution expands upon this work to illustrate how paradox mindset flows across individual, team, and organizational levels. Understanding these flows and interactions is important to capitalize on collective insights that enhance not only individual, but also team and organizational performance.
Finally, we also offer a supporting insight into the role of intentionality in paradox mindset enactment, highlighting how deliberate practices reinforce engagement with paradoxes. Intentionality refers to the deliberate approach of recognizing and engaging with paradoxes rather than avoiding or dismissing them. Gaim et al. (2022) introduce the notion of “more-than” approach to paradox, as an extension of “both/and” and where competing demands are not merely accommodated, but rather actively leveraged in the search for novel and creative solutions. We build on this work, by highlighting that a paradox mindset is not merely about passively reacting to paradoxes, but also about intentionally engaging with them through both cognition and deliberate actions. The notion of intent is evidenced in the practices that participants deliberately engage in as they enact paradox mindset. These efforts shift the view of paradoxes being seen as barriers or logical puzzles to be solved to opportunities for thinking outside the box and catalysts for innovative solutions. While paradoxes can be navigated without a paradox mindset, our findings suggest that the absence of intent may limit effectiveness. This insight underscores the importance of proactive engagement in developing paradox capability across organizational levels.
Implications for Practice
Previous studies have tended to focus on definitions of paradox mindset without suggesting how to put it into practice. Our study sheds light on organization-wide practices and interactions by which a paradox mindset might be “scaled up” to incorporate multilevel interactions. It has implications for leaders, HR professionals, and organizational change practitioners facing paradoxes. It is important that practitioners understand that simplistic efforts to navigate organizational paradox are unlikely to be successful (Collings et al., 2021). Using a paradox mindset to navigate organizational paradoxes is a nuanced undertaking that unfolds (a) as practices within each level, (b) via interactions between levels, (c) as an intentional, ongoing effort.
Leaders will benefit from our findings that illustrate how individual-level paradox mindset can contribute to team and organizational level practices and vice versa. To do so they should acknowledge the interconnectedness of factors at different organizational levels rather than focusing on isolated elements. The MLPM framework provides a structured, and effective way to navigate paradoxical tensions. Leaders with a paradox mindset can effectively navigate organizational paradoxes themselves (Zheng et al., 2018) and also help their followers to engage in paradoxical behavior (Boemelburg et al., 2023). By actively implementing practices discussed in our paper leaders can drive the adoption of a paradox mindset throughout their organization. They must take a proactive role in fostering an environment where paradoxes are seen as catalysts for creative solutions at all levels. This can be done by modeling curiosity, adaptability and continuous improvement to actively promote the sharing of diverse perspectives and encourage input from all parts of the organization. By doing so, leaders can integrate individual-level paradox mindsets into broader organizational practices, thereby turning paradoxes into opportunities for innovation and growth.
HR professionals will benefit from deeper understanding of multilevel practices underpinning a paradox mindset, allowing prioritization of investment in recruiting for essential skills and capabilities, as well as ensuring a comprehensive approach to building a paradox-ready workforce. For example, HR functions can use the MLPM framework to guide efforts to recruit staff by seeking out candidates with diverse perspectives, varied experiences, and advanced cognitive skills at all levels in the organization. They must simultaneously focus on building the adaptive capabilities necessary to navigate paradoxical challenges. This includes developing training programs that foster a paradox mindset at all levels and that enhance employee abilities to thrive under conditions of paradox.
For organizational change practitioners, the framework provides a robust toolset to enhance agility and adaptability in managing the contradictory challenges associate with change, thus ensuring smoother transitions. Additionally, they can adopt it to promote a culture where paradoxes are leveraged as opportunities for innovation, driving more effective and sustainable organizational transformation.
Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research
This study contributes to the emerging research into approaches for navigating multilevel paradox in organizations. Notwithstanding, a number of limitations offer opportunities for future research. The empirical setting of a single case from within the financial services sector may lead to questions about the generalizability of the study to different settings. A second limitation is associated with the study's relatively limited sample size. Despite scholarly assurance that the sample size is adequate (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006; Guest et al., 2006), it is possible that having a larger sample size may have resulted in different findings. These, and other limitations arising from reliance on participant self-report data and risk of researcher bias in interpreting the data were mitigated by evidence-based strategies aimed at building trustworthiness in the research as discussed in the analysis section.
We acknowledge the limitations of using only one level of data, wherein team- and organization-level insights were captured through descriptions of joint experiences, rather than from team or organization level data. This interpretive approach is consistent with referential strategies outlined by Klein and Kozlowski (2000), which support the use of individual-level data to explore higher-level phenomena when participants have insight into broader organizational dynamics. It also follows the example of other multilevel papers published in top-tier journals (e.g., Crossan et al., 1999; Hitt et al., 2007) that have similarly not used data from different levels in their discussion of multilevel phenomena. While a key implication of this research is that paradox mindset is a multilevel phenomenon requiring an integrated organization-wide approach, further exploration of interactions between the micro-, meso-, and macro levels across timeframes is noted as a rich vein for future research. In addition, future studies might also examine how paradox mindset interacts with organizational change processes, particularly in contexts marked by persistent stability-change tensions, with organizational change theories offering complementary perspectives for understanding these dynamics.
To conclude, this study provides an evidence-based picture of multilevel paradox mindset and describes how it was deployed in our case organization. It fills a gap in the literature on understanding the practices through which this multilevel phenomenon becomes enacted and offers propositions that can act as a foundation for future empirical work to further develop the construct. The study transcends the boundaries between disciplines and connects academic work and professional practice, presenting a framework that can allow organizations to better navigate the paradoxes they face across multiple organization levels.
Footnotes
ORCID iD
