Skip main navigation
Articles

The Ontology of Organizational Paradox: A Quantum Approach

    Published Online:29 Apr 2021https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0408

    Abstract

    Research on organizational paradox has been burgeoning in recent decades. While consensus is growing on the definition of organizational paradox as persistent contradictions between interdependent elements, its ontology continues to be contested. The inherent and constitutive views of organizational paradox adopt competing ontological positions on organizational paradox as existing irrespective of, or only through, organizational members’ discursive construction. In this paper, we develop a novel ontological approach that conceptualizes paradox as both inherent and socially constructed, thereby highlighting the paradoxical nature of the ontology of paradox. To develop our approach, we mobilize the ontological underpinnings of quantum mechanics and reconceptualize the ontology of paradox with regard to its latency, salience, and persistence. As per our quantum approach, paradox is coconstituted by latency—the inherent but indeterminate potential of paradox; salience—the concrete enactment of paradox in a sociomaterial context; and persistence—the repeated enactment of paradox in similar sociomaterial contexts. Thereby, we explain how inherent material factors and socially constructed meaning coconstitute paradox. Our quantum approach to the ontology of paradox transcends the standoff between the inherent and constitutive views and provides a theoretical account for the dual nature of paradox as being both inherent and socially constructed.

    REFERENCES

    • Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. 2000. Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36: 136–158. Google Scholar
    • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696–717. Google Scholar
    • Arndt, M., Nairz, O., Vos-Andreae, J., Keller, C., van der Zouw, G., & Zeilinger, A. 1999. Wave–Particle Duality of C60 Molecules. Nature, 401(6754): 680–682. Google Scholar
    • Ball, P. 2018. Beyond weird: Why everything you thought you knew about quantum physics is different. London, U.K.: The Bodley Head. Google Scholar
    • Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28: 801–831. Google Scholar
    • Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, U.K.: Duke University Press. Google Scholar
    • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1419–1440.Link , Google Scholar
    • Battilana, J., & Lee, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8: 397–441.Link , Google Scholar
    • Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. 2015. Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1658–1685.Link , Google Scholar
    • Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. 2004. Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57: 1313–1332. Google Scholar
    • Bowen, F. E., Bansal, P., & Slawinski, N. 2018. Scale matters: The scale of environmental issues in corporate collective actions. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 1411–1436. Google Scholar
    • Bub, J. 1997. Interpreting the quantum world. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
    • Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. 1988. Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. QuinnK. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 1–18. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar
    • Child, C. 2020. Whence paradox? Framing away the potential challenges of doing well by doing good in social enterprise organizations. Organization Studies, 41: 1147–1167. Google Scholar
    • Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & Cunha, M. P. 2002. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55: 483–503. Google Scholar
    • Cunha, M. P., & Clegg, S. 2018. Persistence in paradox. In M. FarjounW. K. SmithA. LangleyH. Tsoukas (Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life: 14–34. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Cunha, M. P., & Putnam, L. L. 2019. Paradox theory and the paradox of success. Strategic Organization, 17: 95–106. Google Scholar
    • Dawkins, C. E., & Barker, J. R. 2020. A complexity theory framework of issue movement. Business & Society, 59: 1110–1150. Google Scholar
    • Dees, J. G. 1998. Enterprise non-profits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1): 55–67. Google Scholar
    • Dirac, P. A. M. 1981. The principles of quantum mechanics. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. 2014. Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16: 417–436. Google Scholar
    • Dyck, B., & Greidanus, N. S. 2017. Quantum sustainable organizing theory: A study of organization theory as if matter mattered. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26: 32–46. Google Scholar
    • Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. 2014. The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34: 81–100. Google Scholar
    • Evers, A. 2001. The significance of social capital in the multiple goal and resource structure of social enterprises. In C. BorzagaJ. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise: 296–311. London, U.K.: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Fairhurst, G. T. 2019. Reflections: Return paradox to the wild? Paradox interventions and their implications. Journal of Change Management, 19: 6–22. Google Scholar
    • Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. 2010. The Feynman lectures on physics. Volume 3: Quantum mechanics. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar
    • Ford, K. W. 2005. The quantum world: Quantum physics for everyone. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
    • Gabora, L., Rosch, E., & Aerts, D. 2008. Toward an ecological theory of concepts. Ecological Psychology, 20: 84–116. Google Scholar
    • Greene, B. 2004. The fabric of the cosmos: Space, time, and the texture of reality. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Google Scholar
    • Griffiths, D. J. 2005. Introduction to quantum mechanics (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
    • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39: 463–487.Link , Google Scholar
    • Hatch, M. J., & Erhlich, S. B. 1993. Spontaneous humour as an indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizations. Organization Studies, 14: 505–526. Google Scholar
    • Heisenberg, W. 1927. Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43: 172–198. Google Scholar
    • Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dreau, A. E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M. S., Ruitenberg, J., Vermeulen, R. F. L., Schouten, R. N., Abellan, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Mitchell, M. W., Markham, M., Twitchen, D. J., Elkouss, D., Wehner, S., Taminiau, T. H., & Hanson, R. 2015. Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature, 526(7575): 682–686. Google Scholar
    • Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., & Horodecki, K. 2009. Quantum entanglement. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81: 865–942. Google Scholar
    • Huq, J.-L., Reay, T., & Chreim, S. 2017. Protecting the paradox of interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies, 38: 513–538. Google Scholar
    • Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Lê, J. K. 2018. Studying paradox as process and practice: Identifying and following moments of salience and latency. In M. FarjounW. K. SmithA. LangleyH. Tsoukas (Eds.), Dualities, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizational life: 175–194. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
    • Jarzabkowski, P., & 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: 433–462. Google Scholar
    • Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11: 245–280. Google Scholar
    • Joos, E., & Zeh, H.-D. 1985. The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment. Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, 59: 223–243. Google Scholar
    • Knight, E., Daymond, J., & Paroutis, S. 2020. Design-led strategy: How to bring design thinking into the art of strategic management. California Management Review, 62: 30–52. Google Scholar
    • Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. 2017. Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38: 403–432. Google Scholar
    • Knight, E., Paroutis, S., & Heracleous, L. 2018. The power of PowerPoint: A visual perspective on meaning making in strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 894–921. Google Scholar
    • 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: 127–149. Google Scholar
    • Lord, R. G., Dinh, J. E., & Hoffman, E. L. 2015. A quantum approach to time and organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 40: 263–290.Link , Google Scholar
    • Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221–240.Link , Google Scholar
    • McDaniel, R. R., & Walls, M. E. 1997. Diversity as a management strategy for organizations: A view through the lenses of chaos and quantum theories. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6: 363–375. Google Scholar
    • Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., 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: 26–45.Link , Google Scholar
    • Oppenheim, J., & Wehner, S. 2010. The uncertainty principle determines the nonlocality of quantum mechanics. Science, 330(6007): 1072–1074. Google Scholar
    • Orlikowski, W. J. 2007. Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28: 1435–1448. Google Scholar
    • Parkinson, C., & Howorth, C. 2008. The language of social entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 20: 285–309. Google Scholar
    • Peattie, K., & Morley, A. 2008. Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social Enterprise Journal, 4: 91–107. Google Scholar
    • Petersen, A. 1963. The philosophy of Niels Bohr. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 19(7): 8–14. Google Scholar
    • Polkinghorne, J. C. 1984. The quantum world. London, U.K.: Longman Publishing Group. Google Scholar
    • Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 65–171.Link , Google Scholar
    • Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. 2014. Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67: 413–440. Google Scholar
    • Quinn, R. E.Cameron, K. S. (Eds.). 1988. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar
    • Rae, A. I. M. 2005. Quantum physics: A beginner’s guide. London, U.K.: Oneworld Publications. Google Scholar
    • Raisch, S., Hargrave, T. J., & van de Ven, A. H. 2018. The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55: 1507–1526. Google Scholar
    • Reed, M. 2005. Reflections on the “realist turn” in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 1621–1644. Google Scholar
    • Schad, J., & Bansal, P. 2018. Seeing the forest and the trees: How a systems perspective informs paradox research. Journal of Management Studies, 55: 1490–1506. Google Scholar
    • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 5–64.Link , Google Scholar
    • Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. 2019. Quo vadis, paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory development. Strategic Organization, 17: 107–119. Google Scholar
    • Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. 2017. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization Studies, 38: 341–364. Google Scholar
    • Sheep, M. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Khazanchi, S. 2017. Knots in the discourse of innovation: Investigating multiple tensions in a reacquired spin-off. Organization Studies, 38: 463–488. Google Scholar
    • Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. 2015. Reinsurance trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 932–970.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. 1987. Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592–1623.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. L. 2019. Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 1–44. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. 2017. Adding complexity to theories of paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change: Introduction to organization studies special issue on paradox, tensions, and dualities of innovation and change. Organization Studies, 38: 303–317. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. L. 2013. Managing social–business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23: 407–442. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381–403.Link , Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536. Google Scholar
    • Stapp, H. P. 2004. Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics. Berlin, Germany: Springer. Google Scholar
    • Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. 2001. Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14: 349–407. Google Scholar
    • Tonomura, A., Endo, J., Matsuda, T., Kawasaki, T., & Ezawa, H. 1989. Demonstration of single‐electron buildup of an interference pattern. American Journal of Physics, 57: 117–120. Google Scholar
    • Unruh, W. G. 1994. Reality and measurement of the wave function. Physical Review A, 50: 882–887. Google Scholar
    • Westwood, R., & Linstead, S. 2001. Language/organization: Introduction. In R. WestwoodS. Linstead (Eds.), The language of organization: 1–19. London, U.K.: Sage. Google Scholar
    • Wheeler, J. A.Zurek, W. H. (Eds.). 1983. Quantum theory and measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
    Academy of Management
      Academy of Management
      100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
      Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    © 2025 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum