Competing tensions and demands pervade our work lives. Accumulating research examines organizational and leadership approaches to leveraging these tensions. But what about individuals within firms? Although early paradox theory built upon micro-level insights from psychology and philosophy to understand the nature and management of varied competing demands, corresponding empirical studies are rare, offering scarce insights into why some individuals thrive with tensions while others struggle. In response, we contribute to the microfoundations of organizational paradox with a theoretical model and robust measures that help unpack individuals’ varied approaches to tensions. Following rigorous scale development in Study 1, including samples from the U.S., UK, Israel, and China, we test our model in a large firm in the U.S. using quantitative and qualitative methods. We identify resource scarcity (i.e., limited time and funding) as a source of tensions. We also demonstrate that a paradox mindset—the extent to which one is accepting of and energized by tensions—can help individuals leverage them to improve in-role job performance and innovation. Our results highlight paradox mindset as a key to unlocking the potential of everyday tensions.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazency, J., & Herron, M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154–1184.Link , Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., & Fleming, L. 2003. Time pressure and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal field study. Harvard Business School Working Paper. Google Scholar
Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. F. 1972. Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8: 185–200. Google Scholar
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696–717. Google Scholar
Ashforth, B., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. 2014. Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Academy of Management Review, 25: 1453–1478. Google Scholar
Baer, M. 2012. Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 1102–1119.Link , Google Scholar
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 963–970. Google Scholar
Bartunek, J. 1988. The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management: 137–162. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H.-S. 2010. Motivated information processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99: 622–637. Google Scholar
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. 2009. A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2: 305–337. Google Scholar
Brislin, R. W. 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1: 185–216. Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. 2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6: 3–5. Google Scholar
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2003. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 552–560. Google Scholar
Chen, M. 2002. Transcending paradox: The Chinese “middle way” perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 179–199. Google Scholar
Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. 2007. Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33: 691–705. Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. 1995. Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 318–328. Google Scholar
Dobrow, S. R., Smith, W. K., & Posner, M. A. 2011. Managing the grading paradox: Leveraging the power of choice in the classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10: 261–276.Link , Google Scholar
Dweck, C. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Westcott, B. 1988. Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just-in-time manufacturing. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management organization and management: 19–54. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Google Scholar
Emsley, D. 2003. Multiple goals and managers’ job-related tension and performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18: 345–356. Google Scholar
Festinger, L. 1962. A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York, NY: Row, Peterson & Co. Google Scholar
Gaim, M., & Wåhlin, N. 2016. In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32: 33–44. Google Scholar
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M. W., & Ingram, A. E. 2010. Managing creatives: Paradoxical approaches to identity regulation. Human Relations, 63: 781–805. Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. 2013. Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. New York, NY: Viking Press. Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2002. Cultivating a global mindset. The Academy of Management Executive, 16: 116–126.Abstract , Google Scholar
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. 2014. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39: 463–487.Link , Google Scholar
Handy, C. 1995. The age of paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
Hannah, S. T., Balthazard, O. A., Waldman, D. A., Jennings, P. L., & Thatcher, R. W. 2013. The psychological and neurological bases of leader self-complexity and effects on adaptive decision-making. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 393–411. Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Google Scholar
Heidrick & Struggles . 2015. The CEO report: Embracing the paradoxes of leadership and the power of doubt. Project Report. Oxford. Google Scholar
Hinkin, T. R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21: 967–988. Google Scholar
Huy, Q. N. 1999. Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24: 325–345.Link , Google Scholar
Ingram, A. E., Lewis, M. W., Barton, S., & Gartner, W. B. 2014. Paradoxes and innovation in family firms: The role of paradoxical thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 2012: 1–16. Google Scholar
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 287–302. Google Scholar
Janssen, O. 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 1039–1050.Link , Google Scholar
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. 2004. Employee’s goal orientation, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 368–384.Link , Google Scholar
Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2010. The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 596–616.Link , Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2002. Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 693–710. Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 1973. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L. 1989. Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 657–690. Google Scholar
Keller, J., Loewenstein, J., & Yan, J. 2017. Culture, conditions and paradoxical frames. Organization Studies, 38 (3–4): 359–560. Google Scholar
Kropp, B. 2013. Can your leaders handle these four paradoxes? Retrieved from https://www.cebglobal.com/blogs/can-your-leaders-handle-these-4-paradoxes/?business_line=human-resources. Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. 1993. Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65: 861–876. Google Scholar
Leung, A., Liou, S., Miron-Spektor, E., Koh, B., Chan, D., Eisenberg, R., & Schneider, I. In Press. Middle ground approach to paradox: Within- and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Google Scholar
Levontin, L., Ein-Gar, D., & Lee, A. Y. 2013. Acts of emptying promote self-focus: A perceived resource deficiency perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2: 257–267. Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W. 2000. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25: 760–776.Link , Google Scholar
Lomranz, J., & Benyamini, Y. 2016. The ability to live with incongruence: Aintegration—The concept and its operationalization. Journal of Adult Development, 23: 79–92. Google Scholar
Lorsch, J. W., & Morse, J. J. 1974. Organizations and their members: A contingency approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. 2008. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221–240.Link , Google Scholar
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. 2011. Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performnace. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 730–743. Google Scholar
Mcdaniel, L. S. 1990. The effects of time pressure and audit program structure on audit performance. Journal of Accounting Research, 28: 267–285. Google Scholar
Mednick, S. A. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69: 220–232. Google Scholar
Mehta, R., & Zhu, M. 2015. Creating when you have less: The impact of resource scarcity on product use creativity. The Journal of Consumer Research, 42: 767–782. Google Scholar
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2004. Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency complete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 179–199. Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., & Beenen, G. 2015. Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127: 53–65. Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. 2011. Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116: 229–240. Google Scholar
Nishii, L. 2012. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1754–1774. Google Scholar
Nohria, N., & Gulati, R. 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1245–1264.Link , Google Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. 2006. Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 257–279. Google Scholar
Osono, E., Shimizu, N., Takeuchi, H., & Dorton, J. 2008. Extreme Toyota: Radical contradictions that drive success at the world’s best manufacturer. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., Miron-Spektor, E., & Lin, C.-C. 2014. A cultural lens on interpersonal conflict and creativity in multicultural environments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8: 237–252. Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63: 539–569. Google Scholar
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14: 562–578.Link , Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. 2016. Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10: 65–107.Link , Google Scholar
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150–163. Google Scholar
Rothenberg, A. 1979. The emerging goddess. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Rothman, N., & Melwani, S. 2017. Feeling mixed, ambivalent and in flux: The social functions of emotional complexity for leaders. Academy of Management Review, 42: 259–282.Link , Google Scholar
Rubio, D. M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. 2003. Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research, 27: 94–104. Google Scholar
Saucier, G. 1994. Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63: 506–516. Google Scholar
Savary, J., Kleiman, T., Hassin, R. R., & Dhar, R. 2015. Positive consequences of conflict on decision making: When a conflict mindset facilitates choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144: 1–6. Google Scholar
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10: 5–64.Link , Google Scholar
Schneider, K. J. 1999. The paradoxical self: Toward an understanding of our contradictory nature. New York, NY: Insight Books. Google Scholar
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580–607.Link , Google Scholar
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. 2005. Learning versus performance goals: When should each be used? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 19: 124–131.Link , Google Scholar
Sharma, G., & Good, D. 2013. The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49: 95–122. Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: 422–445. Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Berg, D. 1986. Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Besharov, M. In Press. Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly. Google Scholar
Smith, W. K. 2014. Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592–1623.Link , Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381–403.Link , Google Scholar
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16: 522–536. Google Scholar
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Srivastava, S., Boucher, H. C., English, T., Paletz, S. B., & Peng, K. 2015. The dialectical self scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Barbara. Google Scholar
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. 2010. Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14: 296–312. Google Scholar
Sun, S., & Frese, M. 2013. Multiple goal pursuit. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance: 177–194. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. W. 2003. Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28: 397–415.Link , Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. 1993. Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 500–511. Google Scholar
Todorova, G., Bear, J. B., & Weingart, L. R. 2014. Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 451–467. Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32: 575–607. Google Scholar
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. 2005. Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37: 360–363. Google Scholar
Vince, R., & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing the working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17: 1–21. Google Scholar
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. 2008. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 147–164.Link , Google Scholar
Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. 2016. Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 30: 316–327.Link , Google Scholar
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. 1974. Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: Norton. Google Scholar
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. 1994. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 1049–1062. Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Wendt, R. 1998. The sound of one hand clapping: Counterintuitive lessons. Management Communication Quarterly, 11: 323–371. Google Scholar
Westenholz, A. 1993. Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization Studies, 14: 37–58. Google Scholar
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 862–873. Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y.-L., & Li, X.-B. 2015. Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 538–566.Link , Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682–696.Link , Google Scholar

Vol. 61, No. 1

Permissions

Metrics

in the past 12 months

History

Published online 16 March 2017

Published in print 1 February 2018

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Daan Van Knippenberg, Dana Vashdi, and Shoshana Dobrow Riza for their insightful and constructive comments on drafts. We also thank Robert Quinn, Andrew Van de Ven, Jean Bartunek, Kim Cameron, Olexander Chernyshenko, and Angela Leung for reviewing our items and Feng Yuan, Chen Wen, Emuna Eliav, Roni Eisenberg, Moran Lazar, and Michal Herzenstein for item translation and data collection. The authors also thank workshop and seminar participants at the University of Maryland, University of Delaware, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, the Paradox subtrack at European Group for Organizational Studies, and the Academy of Management Annual Conference. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s – Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement number [IRG – PIRG07-GA-2010-268325] and from Nanyang Technological University New Silk Road Fund.

Download PDF