On the Use of Paradox for Generating Theoretical Contributions in Management and Organization Research

• Author: Alain Guiette,Bart Keyser,Koen Vandenbempt
• Date: 01 April 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12201
• Published date: 01 April 2019

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 21, 143–161 (2019)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12201

On the Use of Paradox for Generating

Theoretical Contributions in Management

and Organization Research

Bart De Keyser,1Alain Guiette1and Koen Vandenbempt1,2

1Faculty of Business and Economics, Department of Management, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, 2000,

Antwerpen, Belgium 2Antwerp Management School, Boogkeers 5, 2000, Antwerpen, Belgium

Corresponding author email: bart.dekeyser@uantwerpen.be

Although research relatingto paradox has burgeoned throughout the past decades, how

paradox has been used in generating theoretical contributions remains largely tacit.

Hinging on the systematic analysis of 476 publications, this literature review uncovers

how scholars have leveraged paradox in demarcating theoretical contributions in the

area of management and organizationresearch. First, scholars can make use of paradox

as a means to theorize, adding to the core conceptual conversationon paradox. Second,

scholars can make use of paradox as a means to understand or advance insight on

particular phenomena, drawing from paradox’s conceptual knowledge to push forth

discussions or debates in other strands of the management and organization field. Fi-

nally, scholars can make use of paradox as a way to verbalize something puzzling or

surprising, supporting howreaders are to appreciate or make sense of theoretical contri-

butions advanced. Denoting approachesidentified as highly complementary, this paper

offers explicit handholds for academics to develop theoretical contributions through

paradox, supporting the consolidation and further elevation of scholarlyimpact for the

paradox community as such.

Introduction

Paradox is a curious thing. Although marking the

surprising or seemingly illogical (Lewis 2000; Poole

and Van de Ven 1989), our reality seems rife with

it: how organizations operate has been repeatedly ar-

gued as being more bound by contradiction than by

rational logics (Ashcraft and Trethewey 2004; Gaim

et al. 2018). Maybe even more curious than paradox’s

widespread manifestation, is its incitation of insight

(Putnam et al. 2016): scanning the area of manage-

ment and organization research, it seems that para-

dox has paved the way for progress, giving forth a

wide plethora of theoretical contributions in fields

such as change management (Luscher and Lewis

2008), innovation management (Sheep et al. 2017),

organizational identity (Ashforth and Reingen 2014),

sensemaking (Hahn et al. 2014), decision-making

(Costanzo and Di Domenico 2015), and leadership

(Denison et al. 1995).

While significant attention has been spent on the

scholarly insights that paradox scholars have pro-

duced – see, for example, recent reviews by Putnam

et al. (2016), Schad et al. (2016), or the recently pub-

lished Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox

by Smith et al. (2017b) – , how paradox has been

leveraged to generate such scholarly insight has been

little accounted for: how are we to understand the dif-

ferent ways in which paradox has been used in the

development of theoretical contributions for manage-

ment and organization research? Given that editors

have repeatedly flagged a paper’s contribution as the

element most crucial for the successful dissemina-

tion of insights proponed (Delbridge and Fiss 2013;

LePine and Wilcox-King 2010; Rindova 2011; Rynes

2002), we argue acumen on how paradox can aid

C2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

144 B. De Keyser et al.

establishing meaningful theoretical contributions to

be of vital significance for the ongoing edification and

thriving of the community as such (Cunha and Putnam

2019; Schad et al. 2019). In addition, as several au-

thors have hackled the very width of paradox-related

research to obscure the community’s common ground

(Cunha and Putnam 2019; Engestr¨

om and Sannino

2011; Smith and Lewis 2011), we assert that a liter-

ature review that focuses on the way in which the-

oretical contributions are delineated can help schol-

ars to gain clearer understanding of how different

research streams are conceptually interrelated – im-

proving communal appreciation for paradox’s diverse

academic potential (Schad and Bansal 2018).

This literature review consolidates paradox’s schol-

arly impact by mapping out the complementary ways

in which paradox has been used for the creation of

theoretical contributions. By showing the modalities

of three main approaches present in extant manage-

ment and organization research, this paper offers the

scholarly community explicit handholds to work with

paradox in the act of crafting theoretical contribu-

tions. First, scholars can make use of paradox as

a means to theorize, adding to the core conceptual

conversation on paradox. Second, scholars can make

use of paradox as a means to understand or advance

particular phenomena, drawing from the conceptual

knowledge as established bythe first categor y to push

forth discussions or debates in other research strands

of the management and organization field. Finally,

scholars can make use of paradox as a way of verbal-

izing something puzzling or surprising, supporting

how readers are to appreciate or make sense of theo-

retical contributions advanced.

In what follows, we briefly delineate paradox and

the notion of theoretical contributions conceptually,

after which we develop the methodology used in the

review process. Next, wepresent the main findings of

our analysis by outlining the modalities of the three

main ways in which paradox has been used for the

making of theoretical contributions. We proceed by

discussing the varying intensity in which approaches

hinge on paradox, and reflect on the complementarity

of approaches surfaced. We conclude by outlining

tracks for future research.

Conceptual background

On paradox

To come to terms with a literature review on the use

of paradox, one conceptual question naturally arises:

how are we to understand paradox? At present, work

on paradox seems to increasingly complyon three key

features. First, paradox denotes a contradiction, or a

state of being oppositional to one another (Davis et al.

1997; Ford and Backoff 1988; Poole and Van de Ven

1989; Smith and Lewis 2011). Second,this contradic-

tion acts up between interdependent elements, or el-

ements that define one another to the extent that they

are ‘ontologically inseparable’ (Schad et al. 2016,

p. 7). Third, this contradiction between interdepen-

dent elements is not easily resolved, but persists over

time (Putnam et al. 2016). Takentogether, these three

features outline paradox’s conceptual core, differenti-

ating paradox from related terms such as duality, du-

alism, dialectics, contradiction, and tension (Putnam

et al. 2016; Schad et al. 2016). For example, in its

persistence of a contradictory situation has paradox

been noted as setting itself apart from the synthesizing

tenure as advanced by dialectics; in its emphasis on

interrelated oppositional elements has it been noted

to differ from the more partitioned tenets of duality

(Schad et al. 2016). In this way, paradox has come to

denote a specific conceptual sphere that stands dis-

tinct from related conceptual demarcations. In the

remainder of this paper, we will hold true to the def-

inition of paradox as delineated concisely by Schad

et al. (2016): ‘a persistent contradiction between in-

terdependent elements’ (p. 6).

On theoretical contributions and their craft

While many editors have proclaimed theoretical con-

tributions to be amongst the most essential aspects

of any paper considered, several of these scholars

have also marked the elusiveness of pinpointing just

what a theoretical contribution precisely is (Bergh

2003; Corley and Gioia 2011; Cornelissen and Du-

rand 2014; Gioia and Pitre 1990; Rindova 2011;

Rynes 2002; Whetten 1989). One of the first ma-

jor advances in this regard consists of the work by

Davis (1971), who argued for additions to theory to

be considered meaningful not necessarily when they

are true, but when they are interesting – an argument

later picked up by scholars such as Rynes (2002) and

Kilduff (2006). Further systematizing this notion of

delivering insights of interest, Whetten (1989, p. 490)

explicitly demarcated what a theoretical contribution

consists of in general terms, moving away from trea-

tises that made use of ‘terms and concepts that are

difficult to incorporate into everyday communication

with authors and reviewers’(e.g. Dubin 1978; Gergen

1982). Arguing valid theories to propose an answer

C2019 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.