2 The nature of dilemma and paradox  
 
In the previous chapter, we argued that, in the main, management theory and management teaching over many decades had veered towards an approach which assumed an underlying rationality. The analyses and prescriptions tended either to suggest a ‘best solution’ or a set of analytical tools which enabled managers to find the ‘best fit’ for their situation in relation to a known set of contingencies. We further suggested that the earlier analyses which had pointed to issues of contradiction and conflict had been increasingly neglected. In this chapter we revisit those earlier contributions and we widen the search for more recent treatments of these issues in the existing literature. Much good work has already been done and we want to highlight it and use it to inform our empirical work and analysis.

Dilemma and paradox

Chris Argyris makes a useful distinction between what he terms ‘logical paradoxes’ and ‘world paradoxes’ (Argyris 1999). The former refers to the philosophical word games and the science of reasoning exemplified by statements such as ‘I am lying’. The conundrum and the contradiction are inherent in the statement itself. However, Argyris is more concerned - as we are - with the second form of paradox: the behavioural paradoxes. These are of a different kind. Indeed, Argyris has undertaken valuable consultancy work over many decades based on his realization that these kinds of paradox are traceable to the contrivances of managers. During his many attempts to help managerial teams work through a range of problems he observed that frequently the source of these problems was traceable to the ‘defensive routines’ routinely practised by managers. He says: ‘defensive routines are created to bypass embarrassment or threat to individuals or systems … in order for them to work, the individuals acting as agents for the systems must act as if they are not bypassing’ (pp. 96-7). One important form of this is the distinction between ‘espoused theory’ and ‘theory-in-use’. Espoused theory refers to what managers say - it is the declared stance, the statement of ‘policy’. On the other hand, theory-in-use is the policy that is revealed through repeated behaviours. Faced with these two forms, organizational members may thus receive mixed messages and they may also find that any discrepancy - even contradiction - between the espoused and the actual is off limits for discussion; it may literally be undiscussable. We have been very much influenced by Argyris’s insights relating to such situations and we have, in the past, been fortunate enough to have found ourselves working with organizations where Argyris was engaged as a consultant. The level of self-deception by top teams often goes very deep. Argyris reports incidents where executive teams appeal for his help in thinking through their problems which they purport to objectify as outside of their intentions. However, Argyris develops a theory of action which traces paradox to duplicitous behaviours and ‘trickery’. His theory of action includes the attempts to deny personal responsibility for creating and maintaining paradoxes. His work is based on an attempt to build an adequate theory which would help understand how and why managers seek to ‘protect inconsistencies’ while also providing them with new sets of skills to help them reduce their resort to such defensive routines. Social scientists who want to be able to work through such paradoxes, says Argyris, require theories which enable them ‘not to take for granted the bypass activities which are taken for granted’ within the systems themselves. Thus, from Argyris’s work we learn that organizational paradoxes are different from logical paradoxes. We also learn that organizational paradoxes are in a sense purposely created because actors (managers) seek defensive routines to protect themselves and their units from threat or embarrassment. They then conspire, in highly skilful ways, to protect and preserve the sources of these organizational paradoxes. Not only do certain issues become undiscussable, in addition, the ‘bypass activities’ adopted become part of the taken-for-granted in organizational routines and culture.

Experiencing dilemma and paradox

Other researchers of dilemma and paradox, usually with a more psychological orientation, suggest that paradoxes are experienced as cognitive states in tension and that these tensions prompt some attempt at resolution. These efforts may result in a recommitment to the status quo which therefore resists change (a defensive reaction), or a swing to one or other of the two ‘sides’. We argue, along with others, that there is a third position - and this involves a rethinking which accepts complicated interrelationships. Adoption of this third approach requires insight, exemplification and practice. Ford and Backoff (1988) define a paradox as ‘some thing that is constructed by individuals when oppositional tendencies are brought into recognizable proximity through reflection or interaction’ (1988: 89). Hence, these constructions can derive from individual construction and reflection or from social interaction. The definition also implies that paradox can be dissipated through reframing - that is, through a reconceptualization of a situation. This perspective prompts us to attend closely to the investigation of managerial ‘logics’. Such a reconceptualization can be seen in the thinking of John Chambers, Chief Executive of Cisco: In my view, the days of being vertically integrated and having everything within your control will never return. The entire leadership team, including me, had to invent a different way to operate. It was hard for me at first to learn to be collaborative. The minute I’d get into a meeting, I’d listen for about 10 minutes while the team discussed a problem. I knew what the answer was, and eventually I’d say, ‘All right, here’s what we’re going to do.’ But when I learned to let go and give the team the time to come to the right conclusion, I found they made just as good decisions, or even better - and, just as important, they were even more invested in the decision and thus executed with greater speed and commitment. I had to develop the patience to let the group think. The dialogue to be analysed can either be naturally-occurring conversations of a kind which can be observed, or conversations with a researcher which provoke reflections. Hence, in this book we make extensive use of directors and managers talking - both with each other and with us. We cite extensively their attempts to make sense through their talking about the many dilemmas they face. It has been suggested that the tendency to resort to polarized modes of thinking reflects a leaning towards formal logic. An aspect of formal logic is a tendency to think and talk in either/or terms. Things or positions are often defined in terms of what they are not: e.g. love versus hate, black versus white, wet versus dry. Researchers use these dialogical devices in instruments such as repertory grids. Organizational analysts perpetuate this mode of thinking with its major categories - centralized/decentralized; differentiation /integration; organic/mechanistic; change/stability. Managers often extend this thinking by attributing and locating arguments and stances with references to particular individuals. Thus, strategic options become tied in with political position taking. This can lead to the formation of cliques. This is just one of the potential defensive reactions to the anxiety induced by dilemma and paradox. However, there are many other ways in which individuals commonly seek to deal with this mode of discomfort. For example, subjects may indulge in ‘projection’ - the transfer of conflicting feelings and attributes onto others. Alternatively, people may resort to ‘repression’ - a form of denial which is used to try to avoid thinking about the tensions. Another way in which subjects may seek to cope psychologically is through ‘regression’. This involves a reversion to past understandings which are imagined to be associated with security. ‘Reaction formation’ entails an excessive attachment to a practice or stance which is thought to be opposite to the threatening one. ‘Ambivalence’ signals a compromise which seeks refuge in a ‘lukewarm’ reaction to ameliorate the tension of extremes (Vince and Broussine 1996). A further individual response to dilemmas and paradoxes is noted by Kets de Vries (De Vries 1995) who explores how the apparent ‘irrational elements’ of organizational and work life are suppressed by attending to the rituals and routines of ‘normal’ everyday conventional management. From his psychoanalytic perspective, he traces many of the non-rational aspects and paradoxes to the psychodynamic forces at work in human interactions and organizational behaviour.

The organizational level

In the section above the focus of analysis was upon individuals and their responses to paradox, but there is also literature which focuses on organizational behaviour. Quinn (1988) argues that, to be effective, organizations need to exhibit contradictory attributes simultaneously. For example, they need to be both controlling and flexible, to have both internal and external focus, to manage for today and to prepare for tomorrow. Quinn in a study of leadership (cited in Cameron and Quinn 1988: 12) found that the most effective leaders...