Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Paradox scholars increasingly argue that organizations should not only adopt both/and approaches to manage paradoxes but also consider either/or approaches as valid alternatives. However, previous research indicates that both/and and either/or approaches are based on contradictory beliefs and organizational structures, making it difficult to leverage them effectively. By integrating the concepts of the decision paradox and reflective episodes into paradox theory, we propose a process model for navigating paradox through a “meta-both/and” approach. Our model explains how both/and and either/or approaches can be regarded as serious alternatives, systematically integrated into an organization, and applied to address paradoxical demands. We advance the understanding of the paradoxical relationship between both/and and either/or approaches and the structures that facilitate their effective application in managing paradoxes.

Keywords

both/and approaches decision paradox meta-both/and approaches paradoxical demands paradox theory

Introduction

Organizational paradox research has significantly advanced understanding of how organizations can be managed in today’s complex environments (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022; Lewis & Smith, 2022; Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). Rapid and large-scale changes, resource scarcity, and stakeholder plurality continuously raise paradoxical (i.e., contradictory, interdependent, and persistent) demands, such as the need to explore and exploit (March, 1991) or to address persistent contradictions between sustainability imperatives (Schad et al., 2016; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Management literatures have argued that organizational success depends on clear choices between tensional demands to reduce complexity, focus resources, and avoid becoming stuck between poles (Barnard, 1938; Porter, 1996; Thornhill & White, 2007). Paradox research has convincingly challenged this assumption, offering valuable insights into how organizations can adopt a “both/and” approach that embraces single and multiple paradoxical demands and transforms tensions into synergies. This opportunity is lost if organizations instead follow an “either/or” approach, thereby unequivocally choosing either pole (Putnam et al., 2016; Sheep et al., 2017; Smith & Besharov, 2019; Smith et al., 2017). Thus, paradox scholarship has contributed to a paradigmatic shift in management and organization research, from avoiding complexity and tensions by “either/or” choices to embracing them with a “both/and” approach.

Some paradox scholars, however, have critically noted that the “success” of paradox research has led to the self-limiting and taken-for-granted assumption that a both/and approach is without serious alternatives at the organizational level (Cunha & Putnam, 2019). In other words, paradox research often treats the “either/or” approach as an alternative that is not a “real” alternative. Jarzabkowski and Lê (2017) have shown that in moments of responding to paradox, actors manage tensions through both/and and either/or activities, legitimizing these actions without considering their broader or longer-term effects. Recently, Berti and Cunha (2023, p. 2) highlighted the theoretical and practical problems of assuming that “paradoxes are always best met by adopting a both/and perspective.” They argue that both both/and and either/or approaches are serious alternatives that should be integrated into the repertoire of responses to paradox (Berti & Cunha, 2023).

However, prior research has shown that cognitive and organizational structures often predispose organizational members to favor one approach (e.g., both/and or either/or), thereby preventing them from considering the other approach as a serious alternative, because these structures are imbued with distinct, sometimes contradictory, belief systems and action patterns (Besharov et al., 2019; Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). While there has been research exploring the transition from an either/or to a both/and approach, little is known about how organizations and their members can concurrently consider both approaches as viable alternatives and leverage them in response to paradoxes. Addressing this gap is crucial if organizations are to integrate both/and and either/or approaches into their repertoire of responses to paradoxes.

This shortcoming leads us to the question: How can organizations leverage both/and and either/or approaches in response to paradoxical demands? To address this question, we integrate the system-theoretical concepts of the decision paradox (Luhmann, 2018; Seidl et al., 2021) and episode (Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Luhmann, 1995) into organizational paradox theory (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2023; Lewis & Smith, 2022) and develop a process model of navigating both/and and either/or approaches. The model explains how both/and and either/or approaches can be recognized as serious alternatives, integrated into an organization, and applied in response to paradoxes. We argue that organizational and cognitive structures often invisibilize the rational undecidability between both/and and either/or approaches, enabling the enactment of one approach while excluding the other as a viable alternative. Our model elucidates how “reflective episodes” enable reintroducing structurally excluded alternatives, thereby allowing organizations to develop and navigate a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches that extends their repertoire to manage paradoxes. Because our model applies both/and thinking to the level of both/and and either/or approaches, we refer to it as a meta-both/and approach.

The model makes two contributions to the paradox literature. First, it enhances our understanding of the paradoxical relationship between both/and and either/or approaches and how this relationship can be managed to navigate paradoxical demands. Our model transforms the process of navigating paradoxical demands into navigating a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches. It explains how organizations might expand their strategic options and identify the most suitable approach for managing various paradoxical demands, whether by adopting a both/and approach for all paradoxes, using either/or approaches, or combining both. Second, we introduce the concept of “reflective episodes” into the paradox literature. This concept is the central element of our model to explain how organizations can navigate the portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches. A reflective episode elucidates how to suspend and utilize structural biases toward either approach to better manage paradoxes.

Organizational Paradox Theory and the Decision Paradox of Both/And and Either/Or Approaches

An embracing critique of paradox theory

Paradox research (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Lewis, 2000; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989; Smith, 2014) responds to the argument put forth by scholars who contend that organizational success relies on making clear-cut choices between conflicting demands and fully committing to those choices (Barnard, 1938; Thornhill & White, 2007; Trigeorgis & Reuer, 2017). Paradox scholars term such choices and associated thought patterns as “either/or” because they facilitate the construction of clearly separable alternatives that are distinguishable from the complexities of reality (e.g., profit orientation or social mission), thereby enabling the evaluation and selection of one of these alternatives (Smith & Lewis, 2022).

In recent decades, paradox theory has challenged these “either/or” assumptions, advancing understanding of how individuals and organizations can manage complex situations by embracing a “both/and” approach (Lewis & Smith, 2022; Putnam et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2017). Both/and approaches address both poles of persistently contradictory and interdependent demands, such as profit orientation and social mission. Pursuing a both/and approach does not necessitate addressing both poles simultaneously in every action, nor does it require achieving perfect balance between them. Rather, a both/and approach involves dynamically navigating between these poles, keeping them in play, for example, by oscillating between them and fostering synergies between the two. Yet, it is commonly assumed that balance is preferable, as suggested by labels such as “dynamic equilibrium” (Smith & Lewis, 2011) or by arguing that “guardrails” help reduce the time and intensity of organizational drifts toward one or the other pole (Smith & Besharov, 2019).

Several studies underscore that paradoxical elements can be transformed into synergies (Keller & Sadler-Smith, 2019; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2017). Conversely, other studies demonstrate the negative impact of either/or approaches (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003) and either/or mindsets (Es-Sajjade et al., 2021), which favor one element over the other. Consequently, within paradox theory, there is widespread acceptance that both/and concepts surpass either/or ones (Lewis & Smith, 2022; Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016).

However, some paradox scholars have started to critique the limitations of both/and approaches, and of considering “both/and” superior to “either/or” per se (Abdallah et al., 2011; Berti & Simpson, 2021; Cunha & Putnam, 2019; Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017; Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). Recently, Berti and Cunha (2023) substantiated this critique by highlighting that reliance solely on both/and concepts restricts both theoretical development and the practical relevance of the paradox lens. Drawing from Luhmann’s (2018) systems theory, they distinguish between rationally decidable paradoxes (“trade-offs”) and rationally undecidable paradoxes (“undecidable trade-offs”). According to Berti and Cunha, organizations can effectively manage tensions between various demands or elements (e.g., quality, delivery, flexibility, and costs) by employing an either/or approach when trade-offs can be rationally justified. However, when decisions between these demands lack rational justification (for instance, choosing between cutting costs and investing in potential innovation due to stakeholder pressures for short-term profit maximization), an either/or approach becomes unsustainable. In such cases, organizational members encounter the “absence of a preferred state” (Putnam, 2019, p. 19). Berti and Cunha (2023) argue that in these situations, organizational members should adopt a both/and approach. This approach allows for flexible management of shifting demands and facilitates the creation of synergies between them.

By incorporating rational undecidability as a criterion for a both/and approach, Berti and Cunha (2023) advance our understanding of how to manage persistent, contradictory, and interdependent elements. Earlier paradox literature argued that neglecting one pole by pursuing an either/or approach might backfire due to the persistent interrelation of contradictory poles (Clegg et al., 2002; Smith & Lewis, 2011). However, this argument overlooks the fact that the persistence of a paradox does not specify when this backfiring will occur (e.g., after a year? after a decade?), allowing organizations to also consider an either/or approach. In other words, asserting a tight causality between a both/and approach and the presence of a paradox (i.e., the persistence of contradictions) risks creating tautological ex post explanations: if an either/or approach succeeded, it implies that either no paradox existed, or researchers did not sufficiently examine the case. By introducing the criterion of rational (un)decidability, Berti and Cunha (2023) provide a basis for avoiding the risk of tautological ex post explanations.

Drawing on Berti and Cunha (2023), it is essential to understand better how both/and and either/or approaches can be integrated within an organization to address paradoxes. Previous paradox research has examined the effort required to shift from one organizational approach (e.g., “either/or”) to its opposite (e.g., “both/and”) because these approaches are based on different assumptions and organizational structures (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Integrating both approaches might be even more challenging, as they need to be considered as alternatives over time, and their underlying beliefs and assumptions are not only different but sometimes contradictory. Proponents of either/or approaches assume rational agents operating in environments where rational choices are possible (e.g., Porter, 1996; Thornhill & White, 2007; Trigeorgis & Reuer, 2017). Additionally, scholars and practitioners advocating for clear “either/or” choices believe that a sound strategy should be straightforward and consistent (e.g., Porter, 1996). In contrast, much of the paradox research does not reduce individuals to rational agents and advocates for embracing complexity (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Smith & Lewis, 2011).

Embracing complexity requires organizations to expand their range of available options. Expanding options involves integrating both/and and either/or approaches into their repertoire of responses to paradoxes. This broadened repertoire enlarges the scope of action, enabling organizations to address complexity and apply appropriate responses to changing environmental conditions (Ashby, 1958), while avoiding overburdening and paralysis (Seidl et al., 2021). Paralysis can occur when individuals lack the capacity and resources to effectively manage paradoxes (Berti & Simpson, 2021), which is especially likely during periods of major environmental shifts, crises (Seidl et al., 2021), or when multiple paradoxes are experienced simultaneously.

Overburdening, for instance, occurred during the recent Covid-19 pandemic, which strained health resources to the extent that hospitals had to consider adopting either/or approaches, prioritizing social goals over economic ones (Tuckermann & Schwaninger, 2022). In such situations, an either/or approach might be the most appropriate response. Crises can evoke the salience of several interconnected paradoxes (Jarzabkowski et al., 2022), requiring actors to not only address their relationships but also determine if some of these paradoxes might be better handled through an either/or approach. Environmental shifts compel actors to revisit fundamental questions, such as their definition of organizational success and the approach—both/and or either/or—they should adopt to achieve it (Jay, 2013).

Furthermore, research indicates that actors address paradoxes in the moment without necessarily considering the broader implications of their actions (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). This underscores the complexity of organizational settings and suggests the need to expand the repertoire of responses to paradoxes. It also highlights the uncertainty actors face when deciding whether an either/or or a both/and response to paradoxes is more appropriate.

Berti and Cunha (2023) suggest that practitioners must determine whether contradictory elements allow for or defy a rational choice between poles. However, the complexity of organizations and their environments often makes such choices difficult or even impossible (Luhmann, 2018). Berti and Cunha neither elaborate on how organizations can establish a rational choice nor expand on how to maintain either/or and both/and approaches as viable alternatives. Therefore, it is crucial, both theoretically and practically, to advance the understanding of how organizations can leverage both/and and either/or approaches.

The decision paradox of both/and and either/or approaches

Our starting point for developing this understanding is the concept of the decision paradox (Luhmann, 2005, 2018). This concept highlights the challenge of treating both/and and either/or approaches as serious alternatives and leveraging them in response to paradoxes. It is based on the premise that social systems (i.e., systems involving social interactions such as face-to-face encounters, organizations, markets, and industries) are inherently complex because their outputs are indeterminable (Luhmann, 1995; von Foerster, 2003). Simply put, unlike natural laws (e.g., gravity), which allow us to predict the outcomes of isolated physical interactions, the results of interactions between individuals (e.g., achieving goals through investments in exploration) cannot be predetermined. Thus, for organizational members navigating an organization within its environment, complexity is the norm rather than the exception (Luhmann, 2018), and actors must decide whether to approach a situation as if it is complex or not.

Decisions do not eliminate complexity, but they are central to managing it and navigating an organization (Luhmann, 2018). When faced with complex situations, actors cannot rationally justify a decision that eliminates all rational counterarguments; yet, it is precisely in complex situations that actors must decide what to do, as there is no “algorithm” to determine the outcome of a particular input (Rasche & Seidl, 2020; von Foerster, 2003). What remains are expectations, past knowledge, and experience. While actors can rationally justify a choice, the complex nature of social interaction makes it impossible to eliminate rational counterarguments for an alternative that might be a better choice.

Luhmann, therefore, argues that decisions are paradoxical operations. A paradox emerges because a decision must consider an alternative as a serious option (i.e., a potential choice rather than a false one) (Seidl & Becker, 2006). At the same time, choosing one alternative implies not taking other alternatives seriously enough. Luhmann describes this “decision paradox” as follows:

The decision has to inform about itself, but also about the alternative, thus about the paradox that the alternative is an alternative (for otherwise the decision would not be a decision) and at the same time not an alternative (for otherwise the decision would not be a decision). (Luhmann, 2018, p. 111)

This paradoxical conceptualization of decisions emphasizes that alternatives are the condition for both the possibility and the impossibility of a decision (Ortmann, 2004). A decision requires alternatives; without an alternative, a decision cannot be made. At the same time, alternatives create the impossibility of making rationally justified decisions in complex situations that eliminate rational counterarguments. The unchosen alternative could still be the better choice. Yet, a decision must be made (doing nothing is also a choice). Therefore, actors must treat serious alternatives as if they are not serious to avoid endless deliberation, leading to paralysis. In other words, actors must justify their choice even though they could also justify an unchosen alternative, implying that they do not take unchosen alternatives seriously enough (Berti & Cunha, 2023; Luhmann, 1995). From this perspective, decision-making is paradoxical because it involves treating something as an alternative and not an alternative at the same time (Cooren & Seidl, 2020; Luhmann & Fuchs, 1989; Seidl & Becker, 2006). In complex situations, actors do not know which alternative is the most promising. However, they must act as if one alternative is more promising than others and make a choice (e.g., a both/and or an either/or approach).

The decision paradox indicates that pursuing either an either/or or a both/and approach is a choice (Seidl et al., 2021). In contrast, paradox literature tends to promote only both/and approaches as if this was not a choice (Lewis & Smith, 2022; Smith & Lewis, 2011). As Berti and Cunha (2023) argue, this alternative appears promising when organizations and their members consider their situation to be rationally undecidable, while they might choose an either/or approach if they consider the situation to be rationally decidable. Given the complexity of their operations and environments, the decision paradox goes beyond this insight of Berti and Cunha. The decision paradox underscores the difficulty organizations face in determining whether they can make—or, more precisely, whether they should act as if they can make—rational choices between both/and and either/or approaches in response to paradoxical demands. In comparison, Berti and Cunha (2023) do not elaborate on how organizations can consider and leverage these alternatives over time. Hence, there is still limited understanding of how organizations can maintain the availability of both/and and either/or approaches in their decision-making to embrace complexity. We address this shortcoming in the subsequent section by answering the question: How can organizations leverage both/and and either/or approaches in response to paradoxical demands?

Navigating Both/And and Either/Or Approaches in Response to Paradoxical Demands: A meta-both/and approach

We propose a process model for managing paradoxical demands at a meta-level of both/and and either/or approaches. We develop this model through three steps. First, we summarize and reinterpret the arguments of paradox theory for navigating paradoxes, as well as the literature advocating for clear choices, from the perspective that builds on Berti and Cunha (2023) (Figure 1). Second, we explain how adopting either/or or both/and approaches to paradox “invisibilizes” (Tuckermann, 2019) the decision between these approaches (Figure 2). Third, we build on Hendry and Seidl (2003) to develop and integrate the concept of the “reflective episode,” which serves to make the decision between both/and and either/or approaches visible and actionable (see Figure 3). Reflective episodes facilitate the reintroduction of excluded alternatives, thereby enabling the expansion and navigation of a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches, which enriches an organization’s repertoire for managing one or multiple paradoxes.

We designate our model as a meta-both/and approach (Figure 3), which applies “both/and” thinking to a meta-level of navigating both/and and either/or approaches. This form of navigation reintroduces the decision between both/and and either/or approaches into the process of managing paradoxes. The horizontal dimension in our model highlights what becomes visible when organizations pursue a specific approach (both/and or either/or) and what remains invisible yet becomes visible when organizational members engage in reflective episodes. This horizontal dimension is crucial for managing paradoxes (Tuckermann, 2019). “Visibilizing” refers to indicating or considering aspects that inform organizational members in their decision-making concerning paradoxes. Conversely, “invisibilizing” happens alongside visibilizing during decision-making and involves ignoring certain aspects in the decision-making process. By visibilizing certain aspects, other aspects are inevitably left unconsidered (Luhmann, 1995). For example, if organizations consistently opt for one strategic alternative over another (e.g., differentiation instead of cost leadership), the repeated choice or commitment to this choice reinforces the invisibility of the excluded alternative (e.g., cost leadership) for the organization and its members. As long as organizational members do not challenge the repeatedly chosen alternative, the excluded alternative remains invisible, as does the decision between the alternatives.

The vertical dimension of our model addresses the temporal aspect of decision-making, distinguishing between a situation at a specific moment and a pattern over time. Decisions made at particular moments evolve into patterns over time, which in turn constitute an organizational approach that guides future decisions at specific points in time. For example, an organizational both/and approach may emerge from a decision-making pattern characterized by consistently inconsistent decisions between addressing one paradoxical pole, the other, or both (Smith, 2014). This vertical dimension of our model builds on the insight that actors respond to paradoxes without necessarily considering later consequences (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017) and elucidates how invisibilization occurs and how it can be managed.

Managing paradox with an either/or or a both/and approach

Figure 1 presents the first step in developing the proposed meta-both/and approach. This step reconstructs arguments from previous research regarding either/or and both/and approaches.

Figure 1.

Managing paradox with an either/or or a both/and approach.

Organizations and their environments are inherently complex, presenting organizational members with messy situations (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). Within these contexts, change, diversity, and resource scarcity raise tensions between contradictory demands that seem logical in isolation but become absurd and irrational when juxtaposed (Lewis, 2000). As mentioned above, organizational members can manage these tensions by making (either/or) choices between contradictory demands and consistently adhere to these choices, thereby enacting an either/or approach over time. The upper path in Figure 1 illustrates how this approach can reduce complexity, prevent becoming stuck between demands, and mobilize resources and capabilities towards achieving a clear goal (Barnard, 1938; Porter, 1996; Thornhill & White, 2007; Trigeorgis & Reuer, 2017). According to Berti and Cunha (2023), either/or approaches can become viable alternatives to both/and strategies when organizational members perceive contradictory demands as resolvable—for example, in environments they see as relatively stable with predictable demands. This perception is reinforced by a binary either/or mindset that emphasizes separation and simplicity, alongside organizational structures that foster such thinking (e.g., strategic agendas focusing on profit maximization while neglecting ecological and social sustainability) (Putnam et al., 2016).

In contrast, a paradoxical both/and mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018) embraces complexity. Organizational members adopting this mindset assume that both poles persist over time and that their relative importance can unpredictably shift (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Smith et al., 2016). These assumptions render it impossible to rationally justify choosing one pole over the other, leading organizational members to perceive the situation as undecidable (Berti & Cunha, 2023; Putnam, 2019). While selecting one element over another may provide short-term relief, it can heighten tensions between the poles (da Cunha et al., 2002; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Smith & Lewis, 2011). In such situations, a suitable response keeps contradictory demands in play, fostering flexibility, enabling shifts between demands, and promoting synergies over time.

The paradox literature offers several examples of both/and approaches (Putnam et al., 2016; Schad et al., 2016) such as “consistently inconsistent” decision-making used by leaders to navigate paradoxes. This approach allows flexibility by offering multiple decision options (Smith, 2014, p. 58). Organizational members address either one pole (A) or the other (–A), or both (B) at specific moments, constituting a pattern of both/and approach (B) over time. Smith and Besharov (2019, p. 26) argue that combining “guardrails” at the organizational level with “paradoxical frames” at the cognitive level enables “structured flexibility.” These cognitive and organizational both/and structures guide organizational members on how far the dynamic equilibrium can lean towards either pole of the paradox before requiring corrective counterbalancing. Smith and Besharov (2019) also suggest that “guardrails” and “paradoxical frames” supporting both/and approaches can help organizations reduce the time and emphasis devoted to prioritizing one pole over the other. Furthermore, “guardrails” provide organizational members with the strategic orientation to stay within their boundaries.

However, despite the flexibility offered by the variety of single decisions (A, –A, and B), the consistently inconsistent approach, like other both/and approaches, focuses on a pattern of both/and over time (B) and excludes the consideration of either/or approaches as serious alternatives at the organizational level. For example, a social enterprise integrating profit orientation with a social mission navigates both poles but may not view becoming a nonprofit organization as a serious alternative. Similarly, an organization pursuing an either/or approach (A or –A) does not consider alternatives at the organizational level. A firm dedicated solely to cost leadership will not seriously explore high-end opportunities.

Limiting choices to a single option (A or –A or B) without alternatives poses challenges by reducing the range of responses available. According to Ashby’s (1958) law of requisite variety, an actor or system managing a complex situation must possess at least as much variety as the phenomenon it seeks to manage to select appropriate responses to a diverse environment. However, research indicates that organizations often limit themselves to either/or (Porter, 1996) or both/and approaches (Schad et al., 2016). In the following section, we explore how these options are narrowed by the invisibilization of the decision between both/and and either/or approaches.

Invisibilizing the decision between both/and and either/or approaches

As previously indicated, pursuing a both/and or an either/or approach is a choice. The second step in developing our model of a meta-both/and approach involves reconstructing how organizations invisibilize this choice and associated risks (see Figure 2).

We argue that the decision between both/and and either/or approaches (middle box in the lower part of Figure 2) becomes invisibilized through the reinforcement of organizational and cognitive structures and their continued reproduction in decision-making processes (refer to the respective arrow in Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Invisibilizing the decision between both/and and either/or approaches.

Earlier and more recent paradox literature suggests that either/or structures hinder organizational members from recognizing both/and approaches as serious alternatives (see the upper part in Figure 2; Cameron & Quinn, 1988; Ford & Backoff, 1988; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). For example, Lewis and Smith (2014) criticize contingency theory for rendering both/and approaches invisible by focusing on identifying the best choice between poles based on situational circumstances. Additionally, limited understanding or adoption of a both/and approach may stem from an absence or deficiency of a paradoxical mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), insufficient communicative procedures like paradoxical inquiry (Luescher & Lewis, 2008), inadequate guidance on both/and approaches (Knight & Paroutis, 2017), self-reinforcing turf wars (Smith & Lewis, 2022), or even from past success that may lead to failures if environmental changes requiring organizational adaptations are ignored (Miller, 1993). In short, the structures that facilitate the pursuit of a particular approach simultaneously invisibilize the consideration of alternatives.

However, this critique is equally applicable to both/and approaches. The decision between both/and and either/or approaches becomes invisibilized when organizations and their members exclusively pursue a both/and approach and when scholars advocate solely for this approach (Clegg et al., 2002; Lewis & Smith, 2022; Smith & Lewis, 2011). In Figure 2, we depict this decision as being invisibilized. For example, a senior leader may pursue a consistently inconsistent both/and approach (Smith, 2014) considering all three options (A, –A, B) to balance exploration and exploitation and enact a both/and approach (B) over time. However, continuously reenacted organizational and cognitive structures (e.g., a strategic roadmap, specific resource investments, beliefs) by pursuing a both/and approach invisibilizes the fact that the both/and approach is a choice, with an alternative being the either/or approach (A or –A). Smith and Besharov (2019) show how guardrails help maintain a both/and approach, guiding organizational members to stay within boundaries while excluding an either/or approach (e.g., shifting towards a non-profit organization) as a viable alternative.

Invisibilizing the decision between both/and and either/or approaches limits the repertoire of responses (Ashby, 1958; Berti & Cunha, 2023; Luhmann, 2018). As illustrated, while “guardrails” and similar structures provide strategic orientation, they also create counterbalancing pressures and hinder responses to long-term or open-ended radical shifts. For example, hospitals and health professionals experienced counterbalancing pressures to ensure a both/and approach during the extreme situations of the Covid-19 pandemic to handle the demands of treating Covid patients as well as normal patients. Tensions between these two demands surfaced because of restricted resources so that shifting resources to one pole—Covid patients—meant reducing resources for treating normal patients, the other pole. What turned this tension into a paradox, that defies a trade-off, is the sense of duty. It calls hospitals and health professionals to treat all patients in their catchment area (Brody, 2012), while restricted resources called for cancelling or postponing treatments, the possibility of which diminished over time with rising health risks for these patients (Tuckermann, 2023). Without a rational solution, the demands of treating all patients—Covid and normal patients—constituted a paradox so that hospitals and health professionals overstretched their resources. This exacerbated the tensions of allocating resources between Covid and other patients. Because the approach itself was never critically questioned, the both/and approach of attending to all patients risked undermining the approach itself. In light of this risk that affected hospitals world-wide (https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134562; retrieved 27.03.23), hospitals could have considered focussing on one pole more strongly than on the other, thereby adopting an either/or approach to sustain their resources for patient treatment. Similarly, a social enterprise with a both/and approach may significantly increase its legitimacy in certain contexts and better achieve its social goals by transitioning to a non-profit organization. Thus, organizational members must remain flexible enough to choose either a both/and or an either/or approach at any given moment and implement structures that enable their organization to pursue a specific direction without predetermined counterbalancing plans (e.g., after one, five, or ten years).

More generally, invisibilizing alternative approaches (both/and or either/or) in favor of the current approach (either/or or both/and) risks producing and accepting undesired outcomes (see Figure 2). Paradox scholars have convincingly argued that neglecting one pole may backfire later, preventing the creation of synergies between poles (Lewis & Smith, 2022; Smith & Lewis, 2011). Failing to visibilize a both/and approach as an alternative hinders leveraging its advantages. Conversely, a both/and approach has its disadvantages and may lead to negative outcomes. For instance, an organization might fail to address both poles of a paradox or multiple paradoxes, as seen when Volkswagen was unable to meet its overambitious goals of addressing both the ecological demand for low emissions and the economic one for low prices with high-powered engines (Gaim et al., 2021). If creating synergies requires too much effort, focusing on one pole might be the better choice. Therefore, making both approaches visible as alternatives enables organizations and their members to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Visibilizing the decision between either/or and both/and approaches is challenging for two reasons: First, it is difficult to think of how actors can change structures when their actions are conditioned by the very structures they aim to alter (Battilana & D’Aunno, 2009; Holm, 1995; Tuckermann, 2017; Krautzberger et al., 2021). If actors are deeply shaped by existing norms, values, and rules, it seems natural for them to follow them and often impossible for actors to envision or implement alternatives. In the specific context of this study, if organizational members are embedded in a system where their beliefs and actions are guided by cognitive and organizational both/and structures (essentially telling them that “both/and” is right and “either/or” is wrong), how can they drive change towards either/or structures that contradict their ingrained both/and beliefs?

Second, visibilizing the decision between (both/and and either/or) approaches places organizational members in a situation that is rationally undecidable, yet still requires a decision (Åkerstrøm Andersen, 2003; Seidl et al., 2021). On the one hand, organizational members need to overcome their “structural bias” (e.g., beliefs, assumptions, guardrails) toward a both/and or either/or approach to genuinely acknowledge the other as an equally considerable alternative. Otherwise, a choice between the two alternatives becomes impossible. On the other hand, if they have no “structural bias” toward either approach they face the “absence of a preferred state,” rendering a choice impossible (Putnam, 2019, p. 19). Thus, organizational members cannot escape the decision paradox of considering alternatives as both alternatives and non-alternatives (Luhmann, 2018).

The theoretical problem (decision paradox) and the practical challenge lie in making both/and and either/or approaches visible as equally viable alternatives (despite structural embeddedness) and in choosing between these approaches (seriously considered alternatives). Addressing this problem and challenge leads to the third step of developing our model.

Navigating a meta-both/and approach in reflective episodes

The third step toward developing our meta-both/and approach is introducing the concept of “reflective episodes” (see Figure 3). Reflective episodes provide a structure for organizational members to visibilize the decision paradox and to develop a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches. This enables organizations and their members to transition from a strict both/and or either/or approach to a meta-both/and approach (see Figure 3, middle right box).

Figure 3.

Meta-both/and approach of navigating paradox.

Although paradox research has not specifically theorized “reflective episodes,” studies on the transition from either/or to both/and approaches provide valuable empirical insights that illustrate important elements of such episodes. For example, Lüscher and Lewis (2008) described a paradoxical inquiry in which organizational members explored the complex situations they encountered, thereby questioning their current beliefs and assumptions and engaging with the alternative of a both/and approach. Similarly, Jay (2013) found that his presence and consistent emphasis on paradox helped a top management team envision an alternative understanding of their organization that aligned more with a both/and perspective rather than an either/or one. Jarzabkowski et al.’s (2013) study on organizational restructuring highlighted that dialogue sessions among departmental members facilitated their shift from a conflict-ridden either/or approach to a more integrative both/and approach.

We extend these insights by building on the concept of “episodes” (Bucher & Langley, 2016; Hendry & Seidl, 2003; Seidl, 2005) and applying it to the decision paradox. An episode is a mechanism through which a system can suspend its established structures (Seidl, 2005) and initiate a reflection on and alteration of these structures. In “strategic episodes” (Hendry & Seidl, 2003), organizational members reflect on the strategy and related structures of their organization to discuss possible changes in strategic direction. Such episodes serve as communicative social settings within an organization, temporarily replacing everyday structures with their own (Hendry & Seidl, 2003). Examples include paradoxical inquiry (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), dialogue (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013), the interactions that become possible when involving a researcher in top management team meetings (Jay, 2013), or interactions with supportive actors (Pradies et al., 2021) and peers (Pamphile, 2022). These structures temporarily suspend regular organizational structures and routines, thereby facilitating reflection on these very structures and routines (Hendry & Seidl, 2003).

Episodes have a clear initiation point that decouples them from daily practices, provide a period for reflection, and conclude with a reintegration into daily routines and structures (recoupling). By speaking of “reflective episodes” rather than “strategic episodes” or a “paradoxical inquiry,” we highlight that these episodes serve less as a mechanism of strategic change and more as a process for monitoring, reflecting on, and redefining a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches. In the following sections, we focus on the initiation, enactment, and termination of reflective episodes.

Initiating reflective episodes

A reflective episode begins with decoupling. Decoupling (see arrow, Figure 3) means temporarily separating from ongoing daily activities (Hendry & Seidl, 2003) and replacing them with the structures of the reflective episode. Decoupling can occur when organizational members experience what we term “meta-undecidability.” According to Berti and Cunha (2023), when organizational members believe that choosing one pole is the correct response, they tend to replicate this choice. However, what happens when organizational members are uncertain whether an either/or or a both/and approach is the appropriate response? This uncertainty, or meta-undecidability, arises when members question whether they should treat the tensions between paradoxical demands as decidable or undecidable. When an event—whether a major shock like Covid-19 or a less severe occurrence such as a discussion about available resources—disrupts a (both/and or either/or) routine, members may begin to question their established practices (Krautzberger et al., 2021) and experience such doubts, which prompts them to start a reflective episode decoupled from their daily practices.

For example, organizational members may question whether their both/and approach demands more resources than are available (Tuckermann, 2023), leads to more change than manageable (Farjoun, 2017), or results in increased plurality and ambiguity that undermines the chosen approach as some members may not support it (Abdallah et al., 2011). These and other triggers may cause organizational members to feel uneasy about their goals and purposes. They may also identify multiple interrelated paradoxes (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Seidl et al., 2021; Sheep et al., 2017), which require different approaches if managing all paradoxes with a both/and strategy seems overwhelming. Such events can raise doubts about the appropriate approach and prompt a reflective episode aimed at managing the decision paradox between both/and and either/or approaches. If organizational members experience the decision paradox, they might establish reflective episodes regularly to reflect on and navigate their approaches to paradoxes.

To summarize, purposively constructing or experiencing the impossibility of making a rational choice between approaches may initiate a reflective episode where actors systematically question their beliefs and applied approaches.

Enacting reflective episodes

Reflective episodes are characterized by the “principle of otherness.” This principle is crucial for visibilizing the decision between approaches and ensuring that the structures of reflective episodes highlight the “other” or unattended approach to managing paradox. The principle of otherness helps to suspend the enacted everyday structural “bias” in daily organizing that sustains the existing approach, enabling organizational members to critically reflect on their decision practice, structures, and procedures (Bucher & Langley, 2016; Luhmann, 2018) and thus address paradoxes. Reflection in this context involves considering alternatives to the currently adopted approach. This deliberation helps members reflect on how they have navigated or are navigating paradox.

For example, in paradoxical inquiries, action researchers act as central (structural) elements that bring a paradox perspective to the forefront, offering an alternative understanding that participants are not familiar with (Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). The principle of “otherness” thus involves focusing on the unattended approach so that organizational members can consider it a serious alternative to their existing approach. By foregrounding this alternative approach, the principle of otherness reveals the continuous but invisibilized decision between either/or and both/and approaches.

Similar to strategic episodes (Hendry & Seidl, 2003), factors such as altered locations and participants (Pamphile, 2022), mobilizing other perspectives as in reflective spaces (Bucher & Langley, 2016), or using external facilitators (Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) help foster reflection. Practices such as playing devil’s advocate, engaging in serious play (Beech et al., 2004), or conducting simulations where members must consider the “other” approach as the only option and reflect on its application, also contribute to enacting reflective episodes.

Reflective episodes guide organizational members by applying the principle of otherness to “both/and” and “either/or” approaches. Members reflect on the decision paradox and thus consistently take seriously those approaches to paradox that are not currently enacted in their setting (i.e., the “other” approach). The principle of otherness differs from reflective activities identified in previous research (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008; Pamphile, 2022) and from reflection in daily decision-making. For instance, when enacting a “consistently inconsistent” pattern (Smith, 2014), organizational members apply a paradox lens to realize the synergistic potential of either/or and both/and decisions, which can then be combined to enact an organizational both/and approach. In reflective episodes, members reflect on this decision-making process and its structures to visibilize the premises that make a both/and approach appear rational. This visibility is achieved by deliberately engaging with the other, unattended approach. As a result, organizational members can think of synergies between both/and and either/or approaches to navigate various paradoxical demands (see the cycle between “clear focus” and “dynamic equilibrium” in Figure 3).

Engaging in reflective episodes and visibilizing the decision paradox enables organizational members to do, at a meta level, what they do in their daily activities, namely counterbalance. At the level of daily organizing, members can counterbalance organizational drifts toward one pole of paradoxical demands through decision-making (Smith & Besharov, 2019). In reflective episodes, they counterbalance their structural bias toward one of the two approaches to paradox (both/and or either/or) by repeatedly considering the decision paradox. In this way, reflective episodes help members enact and reenact a meta-both/and approach that can encompass both/and (B), either/or (A or –A, or A and –A), or a combination of both/and and either/or approaches (B and A, or B and –B, or B, A, and –A). For instance, an organization might adopt a both/and approach to the paradoxical tension between exploration and exploitation, yet not address paradoxical tensions between a social and ecological mission, and pursue an either/or approach to the paradoxical tension between organizational and individual goals by focusing just on the former ones.

By utilizing reflective episodes, organizational members can generate and navigate a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches. To create such a portfolio for addressing different paradoxes, members must make choices among undecidable demands. However, the iterative nature of these episodes allows members to navigate these choices over time, thereby developing a portfolio of approaches that corresponds to the complexity and the dynamics of their organization and its environment.

Ending reflective episodes

Reflective episodes end with organizational members deciding on how to approach paradoxes. By shifting from reflection to action, i.e., making decisions, organizational members recouple (see arrow, Figure 3) an episode with daily organizing (Åkerstrøm Andersen, 2003; Seidl et al., 2021), thereby integrating the outcomes of the reflective episode into everyday practices and ending the episode.

Making such decisions can be challenging because organizational members regard both the either/or and both/and approaches as valid alternatives for addressing paradoxes. The difficulty arises from the differences between these approaches and the realization that neither is inherently superior. Consequently, rather than achieving a “preferred state”(Putnam, 2019, p. 19), members find themselves in a balanced state between an either/or and a both/and approach.

However, the necessity of making a decision remains, compelling members to create an asymmetry between the alternatives. In doing so, they recognize that the decision paradox cannot be resolved. During reflective episodes, members can observe and accept this paradox, thereby expanding their repertoire and (re)defining their portfolio of approaches. They can conclude the reflective episode by selecting which approaches to paradoxes to pursue until the next episode begins. Considering potential future episodes enables members to embrace the decision paradox by accepting that no approach is rationally superior.

Oscillating between reflective episodes and enacting a meta-both/and approach

Reflective episodes involve a process of decoupling and recoupling, requiring organizational members to oscillate between meta-level reflections, where the decision paradox is visible, and actions within daily organizing, where the paradox is temporarily invisibilized. Managing paradoxes through a meta-both/and approach entails navigating a portfolio of approaches during reflective episodes and enacting these approaches in daily organizational activities. This oscillation is demanding as it challenges the assumptions underpinning members’ understanding of and actions in the world, including their paradoxical mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), the perceived need to balance contradictory elements (Lewis & Smith, 2022), organizational structures or “guardrails” (Smith & Besharov, 2019), and the belief in the necessity of clear choices and consistent strategies (Barnard, 1938; Porter, 1996; Thornhill & White, 2007).

Despite the challenges posed by the decision paradox, this process of oscillation enables organizational members to establish and navigate a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches over time. Organizations that develop and maintain both/and capabilities may achieve the consistent application of both/and approaches to meet multiple paradoxical demands over an extended period. Conversely, if both/and capabilities are limited, the portfolio may prompt a focus on either/or approaches, allowing time for the development of both/and capabilities. Stable paradoxical demands may permit longer-term prioritization (Berti & Cunha, 2023; Seidl et al., 2021). Crises might necessitate a clear focus on survival, thereby suggesting an either/or approach (Seidl et al., 2021). In contrast, a both/and approach facilitates flexibility to respond to moderate shifts in the environment. Enacting a “meta-both/and approach” involves managing paradoxical demands by navigating the interplay between both/and and either/or approaches and can create synergies among these approaches to paradoxes. Applying a meta-both/and approach entails a cyclical process of developing and navigating a portfolio of approaches during reflective episodes and addressing paradoxes by utilizing this portfolio.

The meta-both/and approach aims to expand the repertoire of decisions made in the moment and approaches adopted over time. This repertoire is particularly valuable for organizations facing multiple paradoxes (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013, 2022; Sheep et al., 2017) in dynamic environments characterized by continuous moderate and potential major shifts, such as technology-driven markets. Managing resources and capabilities in these environments requires carefully navigating the portfolio to avoid collapse due to overextended goals, while leveraging the advantages of both (either/or and both/and) approaches. The meta-both/and approach significantly enhances structured flexibility (Smith & Besharov, 2019) by allowing organizations, paradoxically, not to be flexible in addressing a specific paradox. By including the possibility of an either/or approach, the meta both/and approach allows prioritizing one aspect (e.g., ecological over economic concerns, and vice versa) without creating pressure to counterbalance as is the case with theories that promote both/and approaches (Smith & Lewis, 2011: e.g., Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Smith & Besharov, 2019). Instead, it fosters reflection on alternatives while providing a clear structure through a temporarily defined portfolio of paradox management approaches. This approach enables organizations to make choices that address some paradoxes with an either/or approach and others with a both/and approach, as well as to navigate these choices over time.

The diverse repertoire of approaches reduces the risk of failure while promoting a dynamic equilibrium of individual (Smith & Lewis, 2011) or multiple paradoxes (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013). While prevalent theories suggest an uncritical pursuit of a both/and approach, such strategies may fall victim to changing environments (MacKay & Chia, 2013), unintended consequences (Abdallah et al., 2011), organizational drifts (Weiser & Laamanen, 2022), chance events (de Rond & Bouchikhi, 2004), or to limited both/and capabilities for addressing paradoxical demands (Gaim et al., 2021). The meta-both/and approach facilitates dynamic equilibria and allows for adaptation to long-term environmental changes without the need for constant counterbalancing to maintain a particular both/and approach. Reflective episodes are central to this approach, operating on the principle of otherness, which encourages consideration of the “other” or unattended approach, ensuring that organizational members treat both either/or and both/and approaches as serious alternatives.

Discussion

In this study, we asked the question: How can organizations effectively utilize both/and and either/or approaches to manage paradoxical demands? In response, we developed a process model for navigating both/and and either/or approaches. The model explains how the oscillation between reflective episodes and daily organizing allows organizational members to recognize both/and and either/or approaches as serious alternatives, integrate them into the organization as a portfolio of approaches, and apply this portfolio to address diverse paradoxes. In this section, we discuss two contributions to paradox theory and outline the implications of our insights for future research and practice.

“Navigating paradox is paradoxical”: The paradoxical relation of both/and and either/or

Our model advances the understanding of the paradoxical relationship between both/and and either/or approaches, thereby elucidating the paradoxical nature of navigating paradoxes (Lewis & Smith, 2022). Previous research on paradox has predominantly utilized both/and concepts to explain how organizations address paradoxical demands (Berti et al., 2021; Keller & Sadler-Smith, 2019; Smith et al., 2017). A few studies have demonstrated how either/or decisions can contribute to a both/and approach (Ashforth & Reingen, 2014; Smith, 2014). Smith (2014) proposed that both/and and either/or decisions are interconnected in a paradoxical relationship.

Building on this idea, we transposed it from the decision-making level to the organizational level, incorporating Luhmann’s (2018) concept of the decision paradox to develop a process model for navigating paradoxical demands through a meta-both/and approach. Our model transforms navigating paradoxical demands to navigating a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches. It elucidates how organizations can manage multiple paradoxical demands in complex situations by applying both/and thinking at a meta-level. Consequently, our model enhances the understanding of how organizations can embrace the complexity, tensions, and inconsistencies they face today. This addresses recent criticisms of limiting paradox management to both/and approaches (Berti & Cunha, 2023), and it explains how actors can expand their strategic options for navigating both/and and either/or approaches, demonstrating the heuristic potential of paradox theory.

Furthermore, our theorization takes seriously the situation that actors find themselves in when participating in decision-making processes (MacKay & Chia, 2013; Weiser & Laamanen, 2022). Leveraging the paradox of decision-making, our model highlights that actors decide in “messy situations” (see also Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). For instance, during the Covid-19 pandemic, organizational members could not predict when and how circumstances would change (Schwaninger & Tuckermann, 2022) as they sought to address the paradoxical tension in the treatment of different patient groups (Tuckermann, 2023). Organizations and their members needed to remain open to both/and and either/or approaches. Our model allows for the theorization of such situations when decision-makers face uncertain futures by extending the heuristic potential of paradox theory beyond a strictly both/and framework to include either/or approaches. Conceptualizing a meta-both/and approach as a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches navigated in reflective episodes provides a foundation for future research to theorize how these approaches enable organizations to cope with paradoxes over time.

Related to that, our model sidesteps the critique from paradox scholars aimed at contingency theory, ensuring that paradox theory does not replicate the same shortcomings it criticizes (Lewis & Smith, 2014). According to Lewis and Smith (2014), contingency theory implies a direct causal link between a situation and the choice of one alternative over another, without the possibility of considering both alternatives. Our model applies this criticism to the meta-level of either/or and both/and approaches. Instead of assuming that a paradox necessitates a both/and approach, our model proposes that this assumption should be a part of a reflective episode, offering organizational members an opportunity to consider it. In these episodes, members reflect on paradoxes and their approaches, allowing them to question, affirm, deny, or develop their understanding of the relationship between complex or messy situations and their responses.

Cognitive and organizational both/and structures: Reflective episodes

Our study contributes to the understanding of cognitive and organizational both/and structures by introducing the concept of reflective episodes, building on systems theory and processual research (Bucher & Langley, 2016; Hendry & Seidl, 2003). We propose reflective episodes as a structure for navigating paradoxes applying a meta-both/and approach. Previous research has highlighted the role of collective reflection in managing paradoxes (Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), and other scholars have demonstrated how humor or irony can help in surfacing and navigating paradoxical tension (Hatch & Erhlich, 1993; Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). In addition, Pamphile (2022) underscored the importance of peer interactions in navigating paradoxical tensions, while Pradies et al. (2021) have emphasized the role of supportive individuals.

We expand on these insights by conceptualizing “reflective episodes” as a critical construct for theorizing the navigation of paradoxes. Reflective episodes begin with decoupling, which occurs when actors encounter “meta-undecidability” (raising the question of whether an either/or or a both/and approach is the better choice) and are compelled to step back from their existing approaches to managing paradoxes. During a reflective episode, actors deliberately consider the other, unattended approaches (either/or or both/and) based on the principle of “otherness.” This process supports the development of a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches, counterbalancing any bias toward one approach and broadening the range of possibilities for managing paradoxes.

Reflective episodes do not negate the importance of cognitive and organizational both/and structures (Keller et al., 2017; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018; Smith & Besharov, 2019). Instead, they enable organizational members to critically reflect on their ingrained assumptions by treating those approaches (either/or, or both/and ones) as viable alternatives. Reflective episodes serve as a structural mechanism that reconceptualizes “both/and” to a meta-level to integrate “both/and” and “either/or” organizational and cognitive structures.

Directions for future research

We identify four avenues for refining our model and further advancing paradox theory. First, future research could investigate how to effectively navigate a portfolio of both/and and either/or approaches to paradoxes in various contexts. Scholars might, for example, explore how adopting an either/or approach to one paradox (e.g., change vs. stability) and a both/and approach to another (e.g., sustainability tensions) could form a synergistic relationship and how this relationship might evolve over time. Researchers could also deepen the understanding of the dynamic interplay between paradoxes, triggers for paradox salience (e.g., resource scarcity), both/and capabilities, and the portfolio of both/and approaches. Future research could challenge or extend our assumptions by examining the premises (e.g., both/and capabilities) organizational members consider when navigating their portfolio. Additionally, strategy research could illuminate how managing a portfolio that fosters dynamic equilibria and mitigates the risks of unintended consequences could create and sustain competitive advantages. This line of inquiry could also delve deeper into the process of navigating a portfolio of approaches through reflective episodes and applying such a portfolio managing paradoxes effectively.

Second, there is a need to better understand reflective episodes. Our model situates portfolio navigation within these episodes, arguing that it involves a complex process of collective reflection. By investigating reflective episodes, scholars could examine episodes’ structures and processes for reflecting on and navigating paradoxes. For example, studies could further investigate the role of humor and irony (Hatch & Erhlich, 1993; Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017) and explore how reflective episodes might enable a collective to adopt an ironic perspective on the decision paradox and develop an organization’s portfolio of approaches. Dialogue (e.g., Isaacs, 1999; Kahane, 2017) could be another valuable concept for deepening our understanding of reflective episodes. Additionally, future research could examine the role of external participants in reflective episodes, such as action researchers (Jay, 2013; Lüscher & Lewis, 2008), consultants (Bucher & Langley, 2016), supporting actors (Pradies et al., 2021), and peers (Pamphile, 2022).

Third, addressing the decision paradox may prompt further exploration of paradox mindsets. Given the challenge of decision undecidability, Willke (1992) suggested adopting an “ironic mindset” as opposed to a “tragic” one, which is characterized by being paralyzed by the observation of paradox. An “ironic mindset” helps individuals accept (rational) undecidability and proceed with decision-making nonetheless. Unlike a traditional paradox mindset, an “ironic mindset” is aware of its both/and bias and, therefore, considers either/or approaches as valid alternatives. Future research could elaborate on the specific characteristics of such meta-both/and mindsets and examine their differences and similarities across various contexts. For instance, some mindsets might emphasize balancing and creating synergies between both/and and either/or approaches, while others might guide organizational members in pursuing multiple dynamic equilibria, applying either/or approaches only when both/and capabilities are exceptionally low. Another type of mindset might leverage the paradoxical relationship between stability and change as a guiding “distinction” for navigating a portfolio of approaches. Thus, future research could advance paradox theory by developing typologies of meta-both/and mindsets and theorizing how these mindsets influence the navigation of both/and and either/or approaches to paradoxes.

Fourth, and more broadly, paradox studies could explore the undesired outcomes and failures of organizations in pursuing a meta-both/and approach. In our view, paradox studies tend to focus on cases where organizations have successfully transitioned from an either/or to a both/and approach (Jay, 2013; Huq et al., 2017; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Pradies et al., 2021). A few studies have investigated failures in changing approaches (Abdallah et al., 2011). Examining the meta-both/and approach and its portfolio of approaches could further illuminate the challenges, conditions, risks, and decision-making patterns of this approach, thereby revealing its blind spots.

Footnotes

We thank very much David Seidl as Associate Editor and the reviewers for their in-depth support,critical observations and constructive suggestions throughout the journey of the paper. In addition,many thanks go to the organizers of the OT Winter workshop 2022 for their encouragement to keep pursuing the core idea presented here.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Marc Krautzberger

Harald Tuckermann

Author biographies

Marc Krautzberger is a Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Strategy at the University of Edinburgh Business School. His research focuses on how organizations manage competing demands—such as ecological vs. economic imperatives or short-term vs. long-term considerations—in strategy processes,innovation and entrepreneurial processes,and in response to societal challenges. He integrates organization theory (including paradox theory,practice theory,and systems theory) with qualitative research methods. His work has been published in journals such as Strategic Organization and the Journal of Management Inquiry .

Harald Tuckermann,Dr. oec. HSG,is professor at the School of Management at the University of St. Gallen,Switzerland. His research interests and expertise are in the areas of managing strategic change processes,paradox and collective reflection in pluralistic settings,especially hospitals. He works with qualitative methods and process organization theories (particularly social systems theory,paradox theory). Besides books,his work is published in journals such as Management Learning and Organization Studies .

References

Abdallah

Denis

J.-L.

Langley

(2011). Having your cake and eating it too. Discourses of transcendence in organizational change dynamics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 333–348.

Åkerstrom Andersen

. (2003). The undecidability of decision. In Hernes

Bakken

(Eds.), Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective (pp. 235–258). Copenhagen Business School Press.

Ashby

W. R.

(1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1(2), 83–99.

Ashforth

B. E.

Reingen

P. H.

(2014). Functions of dysfunction: Managing the dynamics of an organizational duality in a natural food cooperative. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(3), 474–516.

Barnard

(1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.

Battilana

D’Aunno

(2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Lawrence

T. B.

Suddaby

Leca

(Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (pp. 31–58). Cambridge University Press.

Beech

Burns

de Caestecker

MacIntosh

MacLean

(2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332.

Berti

Cunha

(2023). Paradox, dialectics or trade-offs? A double loop model of paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 60(4), 861–888.

Berti

Simpson

Cunha

M. P.

Clegg

S. R.

(2021). Elgar introduction to organizational paradox theory. Edward Elgar Publishing.

10.

Berti

Simpson

A. V.

(2021). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 252–274.

11.

Besharov

Smith

Darabi

(2019). A framework for sustaining hybridity in social enterprises: Combining differentiating and integrating. In George

Joshi

Tracey

Baker

(Eds.), Handbook of inclusive innovation: The role of organizations, markets and communities in social innovation (pp. 394–413). Edward Elgar Publishing.

12.

Brody

(2012). From an ethics of rationing to an ethics of waste avoidance. New England Journal of Medicine, 366(21), 1949–1951.

13.

Bucher

S. V.

Langley

(2016). The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 594–613.

14.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), Paradox and transformation (1st ed., pp. 1–18). Ballinger.

15.

Clegg

Vieira

Cunha

M. P.

(2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–505.

16.

Cooren

Seidl

(2020). Niklas Luhmann’s radical communication approach and its implications for research on organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 479–497.

17.

Cunha

M. P.

Putnam

L. L.

(2019). Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 95–106.

18.

da Cunha

J. V.

Clegg

S. R.

Cunha

M. P

. (2002). Management, paradox, and permanent dialectics. In Clegg

S. R.

(Ed.), Management and organization paradoxes (pp. 11–40). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

19.

de Rond

Bouchikhi

. (2004). On the dialectics of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 15(1), 56–69.

20.

Es-Sajjade

Pandza

Volberda

H. W.

(2021). Growing pains: Paradoxical tensions and vicious cycles in a new venture. Strategic Organization, 19(1), 37–69.

21.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Putnam

L. L.

(2023). Performing organizational paradoxes. Taylor & Francis.

22.

Farjoun

(2017). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes. In Langley

Tsoukas

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of process organization studies (1st ed., pp. 87–109). Sage.

23.

Ford

Backoff

R. W.

(1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In Quinn

J. B

Cameron

K. S.

(Eds.), Paradoxes and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 229–274). Ballinger.

24.

Gaim

Clegg

Cunha

M. P.

(2021). Managing impressions rather than emissions: Volkswagen and the false mastery of paradox. Organization Studies, 42(6), 949–970.

25.

Hatch

M. J.

Erhlich

S. B.

(1993). Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14(4), 505–526.

26.

Hendry

Seidl

(2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 175–196.

27.

Holm

(1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422.

28.

Huq

J.-L.

Reay

Chreim

(2017). Protecting the paradox of interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 513–538.

29.

Isaacs

(1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. Currency

30.

Jarzabkowski

Bednarek

Chalkias

Cacciatori

(2022). Enabling rapid financial response to disasters: Knotting and reknotting multiple paradoxes in interorganizational systems. Academy of Management Journal, 65(5), 1477–1506.

31.

Jarzabkowski

Lê

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging and performing paradoxes co-evolve. Strategic Organization, 11(33), 245–280.

32.

Jarzabkowski

P. A.

Lê

J. K.

(2017). We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 433–462.

33.

Jay

(2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.

34.

Kahane

(2017). Collaborating the enemy: How to work with people you don’t agree with or like or trust. Random House.

35.

Keller

Loewenstein

Yan

(2017). Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 539–560.

36.

Keller

Sadler-Smith

(2019). Paradoxes and dual processes: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 162–184.

37.

Knight

Paroutis

(2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 403–432

38.

Krautzberger

Fohim

Cooren

Schumacher

(2021). The communicative constitution of institutional change in expression games. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 667–692.

39.

Lewis

M. W.

(2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

40.

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.

41.

Lewis

M. W.

Smith

W. K.

(2022). Reflections on the 2021 AMR Decade Award: Navigating paradox is paradoxical. Academy of Management Review, 47(4), 528–548.

42.

Luhmann

(1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.

43.

Luhmann

(2005). The paradox of decision making. In Seidl

Becker

K. H.

(Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 85–106). Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.

44.

Luhmann

(2018). Organization and decision. Cambridge University Press.

45.

Luhmann

Fuchs

(1989). Reden und Schweigen [Talk and Silence]. Suhrkamp.

46.

Lüscher

L. S.

Lewis

M. W.

(2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.

47.

MacKay

R. B.

Chia

(2013). Choice, chance, and unintended consequences in strategic change: A process understanding of the rise and fall of NorthCo Automotive. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 208–230.

48.

March

J. G.

(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

49.

Miller

(1993). The Architecture of Simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 116–138.

50.

Miron-Spektor

Ingram

Keller

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.

51.

Ortmann

(2004). Schmuddelkinder der Logik. Berliner Debatte Initial, 15(1), 18–27.

52.

Pamphile

(2022). Paradox peers: A relational approach to navigating a business–society paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 65(4), 1274–1302.

53.

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.

54.

Porter

M. E.

(1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–81.

55.

Pradies

Tunarosa

Lewis

M. W.

Courtois

. (2021). From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: The social-symbolic work of supporting actors. Organization Studies, 42(8), 1241–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620907200

56.

Putnam

L. L.

(2019). Constituting order and disorder: Embracing tensions and contradictions. In Kuhn

C. V. T.

(Ed.), Dis/organization as communication: Exploring the disordering, disruptive and chaotic properties of communication (pp. 17–35). Routledge.

57.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Banghart

(2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.

58.

Rasche

Seidl

(2020). A Luhmannian perspective on strategy: Strategy as paradox and meta-communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 73, Article 101984.

59.

Schad

Lewis

M. W.

Raisch

Smith

M. W.

(2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.

60.

Schwaninger

Tuckermann

(2022). Steuerung in der Pandemie: Wege aus der COVID-Krise [Steering through the pandemic: pathways out of the COVID-crisis]. In Tuckermann

Schwaninger

(Eds.), Wege aus der COVID-19-Krise (1st ed., pp. 135–158). Haupt.

61.

Seidl

(2005). Organisational identity and self-transformation. Ashgate Publishing.

62.

Seidl

Becker

K. H.

(2006). Organizations as distinction generating and processing systems: Niklas Luhmann’s contribution to organization studies. Organization, 13(1), 9–35.

63.

Seidl

Lê

Jarzabkowski

(2021). The generative potential of Luhmann’s theorizing for paradox research: Decision paradox and deparadoxization. In Bednarek

Cunha

M. P.

Schad

Smith

W. K.

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary dialogues on organizational paradox: Investigating social structures and human expression, Part B (pp. 49–64). Emerald Publishing Limited.

64.

Sheep

M. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

Khazanchi

(2017). Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 463–488.

65.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.

66.

Smith

W. K.

Besharov

M. L.

(2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.

67.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

68.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

(2022). Both/and thinking: Embracing creative tensions to solve your toughest problems. Harvard Business Press.

69.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

Jarzabkowski

Langley

(2017). The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox. Oxford University Press.

70.

Smith

W. K.

Lewis

M. W.

Tushman

M. L.

(2016). Both/and leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62–70.

71.

Sundaramurthy

Lewis

M. W.

(2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of convergence. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415.

72.

Thornhill

White

R. E.

(2007). Strategic purity: A multi-industry evaluation of pure vs. hybrid business strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 28(5), 553–561.

73.

Trigeorgis

Reuer

J. J.

(2017). Real options theory in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 42–63.

74.

Tuckermann

(2017). Paradox in the house: Accomplishing plurality, stability and routinized reflection in a hospital. University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen.

75.

Tuckermann

(2019). Visibilizing and invisibilizing paradox: A process study of interactions in a hospital executive board. Organization Studies, 40(12), 1851–1872.

76.

Tuckermann

(2023). Kalibrierungsmodus für die Krise [Calibration mode for the crisis]. Zeitschrift für Organisationsentwicklung, 1, 43–50.

77.

Tuckermann

Schwaninger

(2022). Steuerung in der Pandemie: Wege aus der COVID-Krise (1st ed., p. 164). Haupt.

78.

von Foerster

. (2003). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In Foerster

(Ed.), Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition (pp. 287–304). Springer.

79.

Weiser

A.-K.

Laamanen

(2022). Extending the dynamic equilibrium model of paradox: Unveiling the dissipative dynamics in organizations. Organization Theory, 3(3), 26317877221090317.

80.

Willke

(1992). Beobachtung, Beratung und Steuerung von Organisationen in systemtheoretischer Sicht [Observation, Consultancy and Steering Organizations from a system theoretical perspective]. In Wimmer

(Ed.), Organisationsberatung: Neue Wege und Konzepte (pp. 17–42). Gabler.