IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eurman/v41y2023i2p191-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approaching management and organization paradoxes paradoxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive encasement strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Roth, Steffen
  • Schneckenberg, Dirk
  • Valentinov, Vladislav
  • Kleve, Heiko

Abstract

The field of paradox studies keeps struggling to put the notion of paradox into the very centre of organizational life and managerial decision-making, with mixed success. We argue that this research ambition can be realized much more effectively by anchoring the field in three interrelated conceptual approaches which build on paradox as the paradigmatic point of departure. These approaches include Spencer Brown’s form calculus, Niklas Luhmann’s systems and organization theory, and the traditional Indian logical construct of tetralemma. In the proposed argument, paradox constitutes the very identity of organizations as (re-entries of) distinctions drawn in the environment; it is actualized in every act of organizational decision communication, as well as in the process of the continual vanishing and renewal of such acts. In this conception of organizational life, the key challenge is to debunk false distinctions by using tetralemmatization strategies that entail a radical questioning of the problematic observational perspectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Roth, Steffen & Schneckenberg, Dirk & Valentinov, Vladislav & Kleve, Heiko, 2023. "Approaching management and organization paradoxes paradoxically: The case for the tetralemma as an expansive encasement strategy," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 191-198.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:41:y:2023:i:2:p:191-198
    DOI: 10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026323732100178X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.emj.2021.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wenzel, Matthias & Koch, Jochen & Cornelissen, Joep P. & Rothmann, Wasko & Senf, N. Natalie, 2019. "How organizational actors live out paradoxical tensions through power relations: The case of a youth prison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 55-67.
    2. Sebastian Raisch & Timothy J. Hargrave & Andrew H. van de Ven, 2018. "The Learning Spiral: A Process Perspective on Paradox," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(8), pages 1507-1526, December.
    3. Jonathan Schad & Pratima Bansal, 2018. "Seeing the Forest and the Trees: How a Systems Perspective Informs Paradox Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(8), pages 1490-1506, December.
    4. Apelt, Maja & Besio, Cristina & Corsi, Giancarlo & von Groddeck, Victoria & Grothe-Hammer, Michael & Tacke, Veronika, 2017. "Resurrecting organization without renouncing society: A response to Ahrne, Brunsson and Seidl," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 8-14.
    5. Grothe-Hammer, Michael, 2019. "Organization without actorhood: Exploring a neglected phenomenon," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 325-338.
    6. Pearce, Craig L. & Wassenaar, Christina L. & Berson, Yair & Tuval-Mashiach, Rivka, 2019. "Toward a theory of meta-paradoxical leadership," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 31-41.
    7. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    8. Rasche, Andreas & Seidl, David, 2020. "A Luhmannian perspective on strategy: Strategy as paradox and meta-communication," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    9. Natalie Slawinski & Pratima Bansal, 2015. "Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 531-549, April.
    10. Ahrne, Göran & Brunsson, Nils & Seidl, David, 2016. "Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 93-101.
    11. Poulis, Konstantinos, 2021. "Complexity as an empirical tendency: Promoting non-measurement as a means to enhanced understanding," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 487-496.
    12. Gaim, Medhanie, 2018. "On the emergence and management of paradoxical tensions: The case of architectural firms," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 497-518.
    13. Waldman, David A. & Putnam, Linda L. & Miron-Spektor, Ella & Siegel, Donald, 2019. "The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-6.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Theresa Arnold & Steffen Roth, 2024. "Social Systems Theory and Family Business: A Perspective Article," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 1015-1024, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simone Carmine & Valentina De Marchi, 2023. "Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 139-158, April.
    2. Michael Grothe-Hammer & Héloïse Berkowitz & Olivier Berthod, 2022. "Decisional organization theory: towards an integrated framework of organization," Post-Print hal-03699112, HAL.
    3. Tina C Ambos & Sebastian H Fuchs & Alexander Zimmermann, 2020. "Managing interrelated tensions in headquarters–subsidiary relationships: The case of a multinational hybrid organization," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(6), pages 906-932, August.
    4. Roth, Steffen & Schwede, Peter & Valentinov, Vladislav & Pérez-Valls, Miguel & Kaivo-oja, Jari, 2020. "Harnessing big data for a multifunctional theory of the firm," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 54-61.
    5. Schneckenberg, Dirk & Roth, Steffen & Velamuri, Vivek K., 2023. "Deparadoxification and value focus in sharing ventures: Concealing paradoxes in strategic decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    6. Tilson, David & Sørensen, Carsten & Lyytinen, Kalle J., 2021. "Digitally induced industry paradoxes: disruptive innovations of taxiwork and music streaming beyond organizational boundaries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106676, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Héloïse Berkowitz & Antoine Souchaud, 2020. "Book Review: Organization outside organizations. The abundance of partial organization in social life," Post-Print hal-02874945, HAL.
    8. Vladislav Valentinov & Steffen Roth, 2024. "Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 301-315, March.
    9. Michael Grothe‐Hammer & Anders la Cour, 2020. "Organization and membership: Introduction to the Special Issue," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 419-424, May.
    10. Marco Berti & Miguel Pina e Cunha, 2023. "Paradox, Dialectics or Trade‐Offs? A Double Loop Model of Paradox," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 861-888, June.
    11. Waldman, David A. & Putnam, Linda L. & Miron-Spektor, Ella & Siegel, Donald, 2019. "The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 1-6.
    12. Héloïse Berkowitz & Nils Brunsson & Michael Grothe-Hammer & Mikaela Sundberg & Bertrand Valiorgue, 2022. "Meta-Organizations: A Clarification and a Way Forward," Post-Print hal-03685386, HAL.
    13. Al-Atwi, Amer Ali & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Khan, Zaheer, 2021. "Micro-foundations of organizational design and sustainability: The mediating role of learning ambidexterity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1).
    14. Héloïse Berkowitz & Sanne Bor, 2022. "Meta-organization as partial organization: An integrated framework of organizationality and decisionality," Post-Print hal-03717158, HAL.
    15. Vladislav Valentinov, 2022. "System or Process? A Meta-theoretical Reflection on the Nature of the Firm," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Héloïse Berkowitz & Sanne Bor, 2024. "Meta-organizations for sustainability transformations: Navigating tensions between imperatives of transition and meta-organizationality," Post-Print hal-04493940, HAL.
    17. Jeon, Euiju & Maula, Markku, 2022. "Progress toward understanding tensions in corporate venture capital: A systematic review," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4).
    18. Lalaounis, Sotiris T. & Nayak, Ajit, 2022. "Dynamic stability: Unfolding dynamics of vicious cycles in a design firm," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 137-150.
    19. Berkowitz, Heloise & Souchaud, Antoine, 2024. "Filling successive technologically-induced governance gaps: Meta-organizations as regulatory innovation intermediaries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. Ahrne, Göran & Brunsson, Nils & Seidl, David, 2017. "On the fruitfulness of the concept of partial organization: A rejoinder to Apelt et al," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 297-299.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eurman:v:41:y:2023:i:2:p:191-198. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/115/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.