Modern organizations are rife with tensions and paradoxes, requiring the people within them to integrate conflicting agendas and contradictory demands on a regular basis. For instance, product developers have to consider cost issues and follow specifications when developing new ideas. Typical reactions to contradictory demands include a sense of threat, defensiveness, and a tendency to focus on one demand at the expense of the other.
My Research
[This article has been reprinted, with permission, from Rotman Management, the magazine of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management]
Glad to see that academia is "on it" with this topic. Two things come up for me when I read this. I wonder if you are aware that this type of both/and thinking develops over time, from quite limited either/or mindsets to very creative ways of holding paradox. The ability to hold polarity as a both/and construct is a milestone in human development, and not everyone gets there... This point is explained in Beena Sharma and Susann Cook-Greuter's 2010 paper, "Polarities and Ego Development: Polarity Thinking In Ego Development Theory and Developmental Coaching." Also you may be interested in Barry Johnson's theory of Polarity Thinking. You can find it on the Web at PolarityPartnerships.com. FYI, I've recently written a paper about all of this which I'll present at the Integral Theory Conference in July. Let me know if you are interested in hearing more... And best wishes for continued learning and application of your very interesting research! Allison Conte Principal, MetaIntegral Associates
on May 23, 2013Interesting. But I disagree to make this a blanket principle. Here is why. There is a zen story about paradoxial frame activation. I have written about it on my blog. http://kedarsoman.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/the-duck-in-the-bottle/ (Sorry I feel like I am pimping my blog. But I feel that is highly relevant.) In evolution of any idea, there is a benefit to \"diversity\", generate more ideas, only in a certain phase. This conflicting objective thing might be good to get a discussion going, to expose the assumptions, to gel a team. Beyond a certain point, you are generating garbage. Today\'s innovation folks seem every ideas as a lottery ticket, a purely random card with significant upside potential. So more is better. But that\'s not true. You incur cost in generating and evaluating ideas as well. Truly groundbreaking ideas and efforts result when there is a central theme to thinking and there are minimum constraints. This is hardest part for managers to get. You can create culture where this kind of productive spontaneity thrives. But it requires you to let go of control and take a back seat more than to introduce a bunch of rules and initiatives.
on May 22, 2013