Managing paradoxes in the public sector: a systematic and problematizing review of macro-level concepts

• Date: 30 July 2024
• Pages: 789-804
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2023-0330
• Published date: 30 July 2024
• Subject Matter: Public policy & environmental management,Politics,Public adminstration & management
• Author: Daniela Schädeli,Adrian Ritz

Managing paradoxes

in the public sector: a systematic

and problematizing review

of macro-level concepts

Daniela Sch€

adeli and Adrian Ritz

University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Abstract

Purpose –This article investigates different terms and concepts of paradox dimensions in Public

Administrationbecause these terms are often used interchangeably. The aim is to reveal the theoretically based

macro-level concepts and establish a common ground for a shared dialogue about managing paradoxes in

the field.

Design/methodology/approach –This article uses a complementary review approach. First, a systematic

literature review is executed to identify the macro-level paradox concepts and to capture their theoretical

common ground. Second, the problematizing literature review aims to reflectPublic Administration literature

with literature from outside the field, mainly from Organization Studies and General Management.

Findings –For the most part, the macro-level paradox concepts in PublicAdministration are used to illustrate

the context or situation of another research topic, rather than as standalone theories to be conceptually or

empirically explored. In 63 out of 589 articles, we found a theoretical definition of the mentioned macro-level

paradox concept. This definition refers mainly to the sources of paradoxical situations and focusesless on the

decisions and reactions thereto. Based on the review findings, an analytical model for the management of

paradoxical situations in the public sector is provided and applied, followed by recommendations for further

research.

Originality/value –This article aims to combine the macro-level paradox concepts in Public Administration

with the insights of Paradox Theory and reveals that paradoxes could be a core topic in the field. Scholars in

Public Administration could approach paradoxical situations from their own perspective while simultaneously

strengthening the field’s identity by encouraging multiperspectivity.

Keywords Public administration, Systematic literature review, Wicked problems, Paradox theory,

Goal ambiguity, Problematizing literature review

Paper type Literature review

Introduction

Paradoxes are inherent in the public sector. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the

conflict between the need to protect people against COVID-19 while at the same time

preserving jobs led political and administrative decision-makers to weigh human health

considerations against economic concerns (Carmine et al.,2021;Pradies et al., 2021). Human

health and economic needs create a paradoxical situation when the two element s are framed

as being of equal value and importance but not simultaneously feasibl e, and it becomes

necessary to decide between these two even though the choice seems impossible (Ang eli et al.,

2021). Paradoxes describe the conditions of unique situations that are embedded in time,

place, and history, contain ambiguous, contradictory, and interwoven elements that defy

clear definitions and, thus, open up room for interpretation and negotiation (Hood , 2000;

Talbot, 2003;Smith and Lewis, 2011;Edmonstone et al., 2019). According to sociological

theory, these paradoxical situations can be assigned to the macro- (structura l) or micro-

(individual) level of analysis (Keizer, 2015). We focus in this artic le on macro-level paradoxes,

because they simply exist and are not caused by poor management or incompetent decision-

makers. According to the OECD (2018) in future, the ability to deal wi th paradoxical

situations is expected to be one of the most important management skills. Before we can

International

Journal of Public

Sector

Management

789

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0951-3558.htm

Received 13 November 2023

Revised 12 March 2024

14 May 2024

Accepted 14 June 2024

International Journal of Public

Sector Management

Vol. 37 No. 6, 2024

pp. 789-804

© Emerald Publishing Limited

0951-3558

DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-11-2023-0330

make recommendations for the management of paradoxes in the public sector, howev er, we

must first examine what concepts of paradoxes in Public Administration exist and what

aspects and phases they describe to ensure that we are sta rting from a theoretical “common

ground”. Thus far, there has not been any overview of paradox concepts in Public

Administration. We therefore investigate the research question: How can p aradoxical

situations in public administration be analyzed? Our research has two main objectives. First,

we aim to identify the different macro-level concepts of paradoxes in Pub lic Administration.

Second, we aim to use these concepts to develop a model for analyzing paradoxical situations.

The ultimate goal is to provide support for decision-makers to help them effectively manage

paradoxes.

Thus, in a first step, it is important to identify which theoretical concepts in Public

Administration are concerned with paradoxes. Many different terms are used to describe

paradoxes, many of which are used interchangeably (Smith, 2014;Adeoye and Ran, 2023), e.g.

competing institutional demands (Pache and Santos, 2021), organizational goal ambiguity

(Jung, 2014), or wicked problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973;Head and Alford, 2015). We argue

that these macro-level concepts can be allocated to different dimensions of paradoxes

(Thomann et al., 2016). It is crucial to address the different paradox concepts in Public

Administration because it contributes to the dialogue about the identity of our field

(McDonald et al., 2022). Capturing the different macro-level concepts is not about creating a

meta-theory; each concept has its justification and limits. Instead, our goal is to place the

existing concepts in relation to each other and to establish a “common ground”for the

theoretical consideration of concepts and terms. Methodologically, for this first step, we use a

systematic review to record the various concepts that exist within Public Administration. In

the second step, we conduct a problematizing review. The problematizing review follows a

complementary approach to the systematic review and includes literature from Organization

Studies and General Management to allow for a view from the “outside into the Public

Administration box”and to reveal “dominant ideas”and “taken-for-granted assumptions”in

the literature (Alvesson and Sandberg, 2014).

By investigating macro-level concepts of paradoxes in Public Administration, the

systematic and problematizing review contributes to the review literature in Public

Administration and, more specifically, to a more holistic approach to reviewing research (Fan

et al., 2022;George et al., 2023;Strader et al., 2023). Furthermore, this literature review brings

together the insights on the sources, the decisions, and the reactions in paradoxical situations

based on the reviewed literature and offers an analytical model for future research on

managing paradoxical situations.

Conceptualization of paradoxes in Public Administration

When addressing important social issues in the public sector, such as energy supply or

sustainable mobility, collaborative approaches can help to ensure the acceptance of the

implemented solutions. Each of these partnerships is made up of collaborative governance

structures and autonomous organizational hierarchies, which earlier studies have linked to a

number of paradoxes (Vangen, 2017). According to Vangen (2017), the term paradox refers to:

“collaborative contexts as complex networks of overlapping, dynamic hierarchies and

systems that involve competing designs and processes necessary to achieve desired

outcomes”(265). As the public sector’s partnerships with politics, the economy, NGOs, and

other actors continue to change, different interdependencies and paradoxical constellations

have emerged, as reflected in the Public Administration literature. In order to shed more light

on these paradoxical constellations, we have identified two structural and two processual

dimensions based on the article by Thomann et al. (2016). The two structural dimensions are

institutional paradoxes and organizational paradoxes:

IJPSM

37,6

790