http://www.diva-portal.org
This is the published version of a paper published in Scandinavian Journal of Management.
Citation for the original published paper (version of record):
Gaim, M., Wåhlin, N. (2016)
In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32(1): 33-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.12.002
Access to the published version may require subscription.
N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.
Permanent link to this version:
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-113788
In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions
Medhanie Gaim*, Nils Wåhlin
UmeåSchoolofBusinessandEconomics,DepartmentofBusinessAdministration,UmeåUniversity,Sweden
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory:
Received5April2013
Receivedinrevisedform30November2015 Accepted14December2015
Availableonlinexxx
Keywords:
Designthinking Organizationaldesign Paradoxicaltensions Symmetricorganizationalform Synthesizing
ABSTRACT
We examine paradoxes in organizations and the organizations’ abilityto dealwith the resulting paradoxicaltensions.Paradoxesconstitutecontradictoryyetinterrelatedorganizationaldemandsthat exist simultaneously,withtheresultingtensionspersistingovertime.Irrespectiveoftheprevailing evidencethatengagingparadoxesleadstopeakperformanceintheshort-term,whichreinforceslong- termsuccess,thequestionofhowthismightbedoneremainsperplexing.Thus,basedonpragmatic philosophy,thispaperaimstoincreaseourunderstandingofwhatconstitutesaparadoxandsuggestsa conceptualframeworkfromwhichorganizationsandtheirmemberscanframeandcopewithtensions thatresultfromparadoxes.Specifically,weconceptuallymapawaytoachieveasynthesisofparadoxical tensionsthatisinformedbydesignthinking.Thissynthesisissaidtooccurwhencompetingdemandsare simultaneouslyfulfilledtotheirfullpotential.Inthispaper,designthinking–asamanagementconcept– isusedtorefertotheinterplaybetweenperspective,structure,process,andmindset.Itprovidesan alternativeframingofhoworganizationsapproachparadoxesanddealwiththeresultingtensions.
ã2015Z.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1.Introduction
In contemporary organizations, competing demands are inevitableandubiquitousfeatures (Lewis,2000;Sanchez-Runde
&Pettigrew,2003)thatexistbeyondmanagement’scontrol(Clegg, Cunha, & Cunha, 2002). Such competing demands require simultaneousattentionandareoftenviewedincontrastingterms.
Theyinclude,forexample,theneedsforcertaintyandflexibility (Thompson,1967),forstabilityandchange(Mintzberg,1987),for exploitationandexploration(March,1991),andforefficiencyand flexibility(Adler,Goldoftas,&Levine,1999).Thesesimultaneously occurring needs have been conceptualized and approached in termsof dilemmas, trade-offs,dialectics,dualities orparadoxes (Achtenhagen&Melin,2003; Smith&Lewis, 2011;Westenholz, 1993).However,thislistisby nomeansabsolute.Fora deeper conceptualdepiction,someauthorsturntometaphors,mytholo- gies,andancientphilosophy.Forinstance,Rothenberg(1979)and Sjöstrand (1994) used the Roman god Janus to emphasize the capacityneededtodealwithcompetingforcesatwork.Morgan (1986)usedtheTaoistphilosophyfromancientChinarepresented by the symbol of Yin and Yangas a wayto describe flows of
complementaryyetoppositeenergies.Andfinally,BarryandRerup (2006) used the Scylla and Charybdis from the Odyssey to symbolizethenavigationbetweenpolaritiessuchasrigidityand chaos.
Given today’s global and dynamic environment, competing demandsinorganizationsareintensifying(Smith&Lewis,2011;
Lewis&Smith,2014)andarebecomingpervasiveincontemporary innovation (van Dijk, Berends, Jelinek, Romme, & Weggeman, 2011).Managingthetensionresultingfromcompetingdemandsis becomingnecessaryforeffectiveinnovationtooccur(Andriopou- los&Lewis,2009;Norman,Palich,Livingstone,&Carini,2004;Tse, 2013; Garud, Gehman,&Kumaraswamy, 2011).However, when organizationsarefacedwiththesecompetingdemands,theyoften tendtochooseoneortheother,compromisebetweenthem,or attempttoreconcile them.This happens formany reasons—for example,organizationalmembers’needtoproduceconsistentand reliableoutcomes(Martin,2007a,b),orbeingcompelledbytheir cognitive limits toseek certainty (Tse, 2013), or attemptingto simplifyacomplexreality(Bartunek,1988).It isalsorelatedto humanbeings’general tendencytosee theworldin black and whiteterms,whichisafalsedichotomy.Inthiscase,Dewey,oneof theleading proponentsof pragmatism,stated thatmankind, in general, thinks in terms of extreme opposites. We tend to formulate our beliefs in terms of “either–or”, between which alternativeswerecognizenointermediatepossibilities(1938a:17).
Similarly,Cooper(1986)claimedthatwearegiventothinkingin
* Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddresses:medhanie.gaim@umu.se(M.Gaim),nils.wahlin@umu.se (N.Wåhlin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.12.002
0956-5221/ã2015Z.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Scandinavian Journal of Management
j o u r n al h o m e p a g e : w w w . el s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n
binary terms, privileging one alternative over the other. Such thinking,when itrelates tomanagementpractices, isrooted in formallogic(Ford&Ford,1994),whichdefinesentitiesbasedon
“whattheyare”and “whattheyarenot” (Normanetal.,2004).
Thus,thisformallogiclackstheabilitytointegratecontradictions andengagecompetingdemands(Normanetal.,2004;Tse,2013).
When the need for logic and internal consistency overrules contradictions,onevalueisimplicitlychosenovertheother(Van deVen,1983).Orderisassumed overchange,endsovermeans, individuals over collectivity, or vice versa (Cameroon &Quinn, 1988,p.7).Deweyclaimsthatanyoutcomethatleadstoanexcess ordeficiencyof eitherdemand,oranisolation ofone fromthe other, is undesirable and characterizes such a state as an unaestheticvice(Pappas,2008,p.78).
Inorganizationstudies,theriskofanunaestheticviceoccurs whencompetingdemandsaretreatedasdilemmas,forexample.In that case, to manage the resulting tension, one demand is prioritized at the expense of the other. Similarly, treating competing demands as a trade-off leads to compromise and reconciliation(Eisenhardt, 2000).In both cases, the inclination towardsoneoftheneedsexacerbatestheneedfortheother(Clegg etal., 2002;Sundaramurthy & Lewis,2003)and the tension is therefore suppressed. Lewis (2000) believed that these typical approachestoanalyzingandmanagingcompetingdemandsare inadequate.
Inthispaper,westartwiththenotionthatthewaycompeting demandsareconceptualizedaffectsthewaytheyareapproached anddealtwith(Normanetal.,2004;Smith&Lewis,2011).Thatis to say, how competing demands are framed (for example, as dilemmasorparadoxes)prescribestheresponsethatcouldleadto eithervicious(choosingtheoneovertheother,compromising)or virtuous(engagingboth,synthesizing)cycles.Althoughwearenot claimingthatcompetingdemandsshouldbeframedasparadoxes at all times, we stress that framing competing demands as paradoxespreventsorganizationsfrompickingonedemandover theother or inclining towards one. Rather, framing competing demandsasparadoxes helpsorganizationsrecognizethatthese demandscanandshouldcoexist(Cleggetal.,2002;Smith&Lewis, 2011;Tse,2013),leadingtocreativealternativesthatengageboth (Smith, 2014; Eisenhardt, 2000). Accordingly, we construe competing demands as paradoxes defined as contradictory yet interrelatedorganizationalelementsthatexistsimultaneously,the resultingtensionsofwhichpersistovertime(Smith&Lewis,2011).
If oneistoweartheparadoxhat,organizingwillinherently juxtapose the contradictory yet interrelated elements (Lewis, 2000).Inthisregard,severalstudieshaveshownthatorganiza- tions that pursue competing demands simultaneously (i.e., as paradoxes) are more successful in a dynamic environment (Tushman,Smith,Wood,Westerman,&O’Reilly,2010;Raisch&
Birkinshaw,2008;Tse,2013;Lewis&Smith,2014).Forinstance, Smith&Lewis(2011)showedhowdoingsoleads,intheirwords,to topperformanceintheshortrunandreinforceslong-termsuccess.
Accordingly,to understand,describe,and manage theresulting paradoxicaltension, theoreticians and practitioners areshifting fromatunnel-vision,non-synthesized “either–or”thinking that emphasizes only one element of the tension towards a more synthesizedapproachbasedonboth–and,best-of-both,neither– northinkingthat engagesboth demands(Smith,2014; Stroh&
Miller,1994). In line with this, organizations are increasingly adopting paradoxical frames (Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote, 2011),paradoxicallenses(Smith&Lewis,2011),paradoxicallogic (Normanetal.,2004),andintegrativethinking(Martin,2007a,b), whichmakessynthesispossible.
Synthesis,accordingtoPooleandVandeVen(1989),seeksa viewthatengages paradoxical tensions.Clegg et al.(2002) see synthesis asa symmetricalrelationshipthat occurs when both
demands are simultaneously fulfilled to their full potential.
However, how to bring a paradoxical situation into awareness and manage theresulting tension remains inquestion (Jules &
Good,2014).And,thiscallsforawiderperspectiveandamindset that works with the intricacies of paradoxes and paradoxical tensions.
Inresponsetoawiderperspectiveandareadinesstoengage competing demands, in additionto dissecting whatconstitutes paradoxes,thispaperaimstoelaboratehowdesignthinking,asa management concept (Johansson-Sköldberg, Woodilla, & Çetin- kaya,2013),canhelporganizationsandtheirmembersdealwith paradoxicaltensions.Utilizingtheelementsofdesignthinkingcan help us,we suppose,deal withtheparadoxicaltensions of,for example, explorationand exploitation (Martin,2009; Dunne &
Martin,2006),especiallywhenthereispressuretoengageboth.
Designthinkingingeneral,though,hasbeencriticizedforbeing loose,elusive andconfusingin itsconceptualization, leadingto variousinterpretations(Johansson-Sköldbergetal.,2013).More- over, aspractitioner-led(suchasTim Brownof IDEOand David KellyofIDEOandStanford’sd.School),acomprehensivetheoretical frameworkisstillmissing.Thereisalsoalackofscholarlyworksto balance the overstated praise bestowed upon it by the practi- tioners (Carlgren, 2013).Nevertheless, we consider that design thinking’sintegrativeapproachandthemindsetitinstillsmakesit relevanttoorganization studies,particularly tothechallengeof engaging paradoxes. Accordingly, we present a deeper under- standingof synthesisusingdesignthinking rootedinpragmatic philosophy.Accordingly,thispaperoperationalizesdesignthink- ingastheinterplaybetweenperspective,process,structureand mindsetrootedinthefallibilists’epistemologyofpragmatism,and central features in pragmatic philosophy such as pluralism, abduction,andunaestheticvice.Bydoingso,thepaperconceptu- allymaps awaytoachieve a synthesis of paradoxical tensions informedbydesign thinking.Tomake ouroperationalizationof designthinkingclearanditsconnectiontopragmaticphilosophy visible,weusedtworeal-worldillustrations.Weusedtheshort- lived spaghetti organizational form that was implemented by Oticonintheearly1990stoshowtheriskofanunaestheticvice arisinginthestructuralfeaturesofdesignthinking.Inaddition,we usedBobYoungandhissuccessfultransformationofRedHatinthe mid-1990s to illustrate the integrative perspective based on pluralism,anopenmindsetbasedonevolutionaryontologyand thefallibilist epistemologyofpragmaticphilosophy.Inaddition, we usedRed Hat’s illustration toexplain an abductivelogic to characterizetheprocessaspectofdesignthinking.Thisrespondsto theoften-mentionedshortcomingindesignthinkingthatitlacks theoreticalfoundation.
This paperis structuredas follows: in the next section, we discuss differentconceptualizationsof competingdemands and explainwhyparadoxesmatter.Thisisfollowedbytheresponsesto organizational tensions.In this section,weplace synthesis ina context in in which it stands in comparison with other “non- synthesized”responses.Wethenintroducepragmaticphilosophy andpresentthecorenotionsofthisphilosophythatareusefulin thispaper’scontext.Usingpragmaticphilosophyasabackground, wethendescribeourversionofdesignthinkinganditsbuilding blocks,whichmakeasynthesisofparadoxicaltensionspossible.
Weconcludethepaperbyoutliningthetheoreticalandpractical implicationsofourframework.
2.Theoreticalbackground
2.1.Competingdemands
Competing demands have been conceptualized in different ways.Attimes,thesemultipleconceptshaveledtoambiguities.
The varying conceptualizations mean that what some people consider a trade-off may be experienced by others as a paradox(Stoltzfus,Stoh,&Seibold,2011).Therefore,thevarying concepts affect the way competing demands are described and how the resulting tensions are dealt with. The concepts usedtocapturethenotionofcompetingneedsinorganization studies include trade-offs, dilemmas, dialectics, dualities, and paradoxes.
Dilemmasaredescribedasaneither–orsituationinwhichone alternativemustbepreferredovertheother(Janssens&Steyaert, 1999;Westenholz,1993).AchtenhagenandMelin(2003)claimed that dilemmas occur when it is hard to choose between two equally beneficial elements. Trade-offs arises from a gradual exchangeinwhichhavingoneelementmeanshavinglessofthe other (Achtenhagen & Melin, 2003). Similar to dilemmas, a decisionismadeinfavorofonedemandovertheother.Adialectic is a pattern that always begins with a thesis followed by an antithesis,and is then resolved by integration (Smith& Lewis, 2011;Westenholz,1993).Theideabehinddialecticsisthatthey attempt to get rid of the tension that arises from competing demands.Asa result,anyalternative,therefore,willcreatenew opposition.Dualities,ontheotherhand,areconceivedasforces thatneedtobebalancedandarecharacterizedbycontradictoryyet complementaryelements(Janssens&Steyaert,1999).Moreover, dualities can consider two opposite elements simultaneously (Achtenhagen&Melin,2003).Thatistosay,indualitiesthereexist internal boundaries that create a distinction and an external boundary that encourages synergies (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Similarly,aparadoxemphasizesthesimultaneouscoexistenceof contradictoryelements(Janssens&Steyaert,1999).Cameronand Quinn(1988) arguedthatchoicesarenotcalledfortodealwith paradoxes and paradoxical tensions, and their simultaneous coexistenceis thereforelogicaland acceptable.Paradoxes,then, are contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simulta- neouslyandwhoseensuingtensionpersistsovertime(Smith&
Lewis,2011).
Compared to the other conceptualizations of competing demands, the difference with paradoxes is that the resulting tensionissustained.Thereisnoattempttoresolveorgetridofthe tensions.Althoughthedistinctionisnotsharp,paradoxes,unlike dualities, accentuate persistingtensions and engagecompeting demandsinadditiontocontradiction,simultaneity,andinterre- latedness. Because of its overarching nature, and its apposite depictionofthechallengesofacontemporaryorganization,this paperfocusesonparadoxesasdefinedbySmithandLewis(2011) torepresentcompetingdemands.
The paradoxical tensions result from the perception of opposing, conflicting, and interrelated characteristics of para- doxesandarereflected,cognitivelyand emotionallywhenone attends to both demands simultaneously. For example, an architectdealswiththeparadoxicaltensionofformandfunction, whilea productdesignerdealswiththeparadoxicaltensionof functionalperformanceandemotionalsatisfaction.Similarly,an interiorarchitectsdealwiththetensionofplayfulnessversusthe cost-efficiencyoftheirdesign.Inthecaseofinteriorarchitects, their work can be within a budget yet aesthetically pleasing without having to compromise on either demand. A social entrepreneur deals with the tension of commercial logic and sociallogic.Soviewingcompetingdemandsasparadoxescallsfor a creative alternative (Beech, Burns, Caestecker, MacIntosh, &
MacLean,2008),inwhichmembersofanorganizationfindaway toengage both demands (Smith, 2014).It should however be noted that paradoxes are not a default representation of competingdemands.Framingcompetingdemandsasparadoxes fits only when there is a constant pressure to engage both demandsregardlessofhowcompetingtheyare.
2.2.Responsetoorganizationaltensions
Severalauthorshavedocumenteddifferentwaysofapproach- ingcompetingdemandsanddealingwiththeresultingtensions.
First,thereisrepression,includingdenialandblockingawareness (andpretending)thattensiondoesnotexist(Lewis,2000),more liketheostricheffect.Thesecondresponseissuppression,which involvesaone-sidedresponsetothetensioninthatoneelementis favoredattheexpenseoftheother(Jarzabkowski,Lê,&Vande Ven,2013).Suppressionalsoexplainscompromiseandreconcilia- tion,withwhichattendingtoonedemandisdonebutonlyatthe expenseoftheother.Suppressionisapopularresponseinvolving reconciliation and striking a balance where organizations seek middleground(Cleggetal.,2002).Thetheoreticalstance,inthis case,isacontingencyapproach,anditisbasedonchoice(Clegg et al., 2002). Although this approach appears to manage the tension in competing demands, it oscillates between both demands,withthefocusonone(e.g.exploration)puttingpressure onattendingtotheother(e.g.,exploitation).
Thethirdresponsetoorganizationaltensionsincludessepara- tionorsplittingandittakestwoforms—thatis,spatialseparation and temporal separation (Poole & Van de Ven, 1989). Spatial separation, also called structural ambidexterity, occurs when organizationsdesignatedifferentunitstodealwithissuessuchas explorationandexploitation(Andriopoulos&Lewis,2008;Raisch
& Birkinshaw, 2008; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Similarly, temporal separation,also calledtemporalambidexterity, occurs whenfirmsattendtoonedemandatatime,thatis,theyfirstfocus on,forexample,explorationthenexploitation.Inthesecases,the tensionis managedbychangingfocus,fromoneelementofthe tensiontotheother(Janssens&Steyaert,1999).
In the responses discussed above, tension is repressed, suppressedorseparatedbasedoneither–orthinking.Smithand Lewis(2011)claimedthatsuchresponsesleadtoaviciouscycle.
SimilarlyJarzabkowskietal.(2013)consideredsuchresponsesas defensive where they only offer short-term relief. Accordingly, dealingwithorganizationaltensionssustainablyinthelong-term requiresresponsesthatleadtovirtuouscycles.Onegrandresponse is transcendence where a response involves rethinking the relationship between competing demands and exploits the complementarity and interdependence (Lewis, 2000; Poole &
Van de Van, 1989). One way of transcending the tension is synthesis.Fortheideaofsynthesizinginthispaper,thepointof departure is Lewis’s (2000) approach tothe tension that tran- scendsthecontradictionandcentersontheinterrelatedness.In synthesis, there is a break fromthe first-order logic based on either–or thinking anda movetowardsboth–andthinking. The move towardsboth–andthinking, accordingto Lewis(2000,p.
763), meansto“recognize, becomecomfortable with, and even profitfromtensions”thattheparadoxesincite.
Tosupportourargument,wedrawonthepragmaticphilosophy that centers on pluralism (instead of monism) to ground our proposedshiftfromeither–orthinkingtowardsboth–andthink- ing. Thus synthesis recognizes thesimultaneous coexistence of competingdemands(Cleggetal.,2002;Poole&VandeVen,1989) bydilutingthebipolarityintheeither–orperspective(Janssens&
Steyaert,1999).Doingsoinvolvesframing,whichinvolvestaking onnewwaysofseeingandunderstandingthings(Bartunek,1988).
In other words, it involves finding a new perspective that eliminates the disparity betweenthe competing demands and goesbeyondcompromiseandreconciliation(Cleggetal.,2002).
Building on these proposed responses and inspired by pragmatists’ philosophy, our proposition of synthesis includes findingawayinwhichafusionofcompetingforcesmightcreatea thirdoptioninadifferentlayerofinterpretation.Fig.1displaysthe differentapproachestodealingwiththecompetingdemandsofA
andBalongwiththecentralquestions.Thus,insynthesis,notonly doorganizationalmemberstrytoengageAandB,buttheyalsoopt forcreatingathirdalternativethatintegratesthebestofboth.
The ideaofsynthesis asacreative alternativetoparadoxical tensions can be exemplified using Red Hat and Bob Young’s approachinthemid-1990s.InhisattempttogrowRedHatbeyond itssalesofjustonemillion,Youngfacedthechallengeofengaging competingdemands.Toachievehisgoal,hehadtointegratethe profit-margin (or growth) objective and at the same time the knowledge-sharing objective in line with the open-source movement.Theavailableoptionsweretoeitheradopttheclassic proprietarysoftwaremodel,suchasMicrosoftand Oracle(thus satisfying only the demand for growth and increased profit margin),orusethefreesoftwaremodelwhichonlysatisfiesthe knowledge-sharing objective. For Young, neither option was acceptable, as neither would engage both needs. The former, based on protecting information, was expensive and forced customerstobuyregularupdates.
Mostofall,itdidnotgowiththehackerphilosophyoftheopen- source movement, which is based on shared knowledge and making human knowledge accessible. The other option meant assemblinganewversionofmanyfreeupdatesfromindependent developers,and theprofitmarginwas meagercompared tothe proprietarymodel.
Ifthecompetingdemandshadbeenlookedatasdilemmas,the typicalresponsewouldhavebeenachoiceofoneovertheother.
Similarly,hadhelookedattheproblemastrade-offs,hewould haveoptedforacompromiseasaresponsetothetension.Inboth cases, the tension would have been suppressed. His approach, however,canbecharacterizedasparadoxicalbecauseheupheld the opposing and seemingly irreconcilable models and their associated objectives, and synthesized the best of both. He consideredthecompetingdemands(ofachievingacertainprofit objective while sharing knowledge in line with the open- innovation movement) in the models to the growth path as paradoxicalbecausethetwomodelswerecontradictory,requiring differentsetsofresources,attention,andorganizing.However,the modelswerealsointerrelated,inthesensethatanelementofthe proprietarymodelcouldbeusedintheopen-sourcemodelaswell.
Thismeansthattheywerenotmutuallyexclusive;usingelements ofonewouldnotprecludeusingtheother.Besides,thetension betweenkeepingthenewmodelprofitable(liketheproprietary model) and yet offering it at a lower cost (in tune with the philosophyoftheopen-sourcemovementandknowledge-sharing) persistedovertime.
Therefore,bysynthesizingthebestofbothmodels,hehelped companiestomanagetheupgrades and improvementsthrough Linux’sopen-sourceplatform.Theoriginalityofthis“third”model happenedwhenhemadethesoftwareavailableasafreedownload onthe Internet instead of choosing the cumbersome CD-ROM format.Hisperspectivecanbedescribedasintegrative,basedon both–and,andbest-of-boththinking.Moreover,Youngdidnotsee
theworld“asitis”(i.e.,hewasnotavictimofafalsedichotomy, believingthatthetwooptionswereallthatexisted)butrather“as itmaybecome.”Accordingly,hecreated acorporatemarketfor Linuxbysynthesizing freesoftware’s lowpriceand theknowl- edge-sharingobjectivewithintheproprietarymodels’profitability objective(Martin,2007a,b).
With this illustration, we make the notion of asking the question“WhynotC?”moreconcrete.Moreover,theillustration shows how the idea of conceiving competing demands as a paradoxfuelssynthesisasaresponse.InYoung’scase,whenfaced with competing paths to growth, his decision was not about choosingoneovertheother(suchasinadilemma)orchoosing reconciliation and finding a middle ground (as in a trade-off).
Rather, it was a synthesis of competing demands. Synthesis happenedinthiscasewhencompetingdemandswereexamined as paradoxes. Conceptualizing these competing demands as paradox ledhimtoacreative alternativethatengagedthebest ofbothdemands.ThewholeideawiththeRedHatillustrationis that lookingat a problemofcompeting demands (inthis case, models)asaparadoxcausesustosustainthetensionratherthan seek a closure, by choosing one over the otheror seeking the comforting, yet mediocre, middle ground. Besides, this is paradoxical, asthethinking in placewas both–and. In casesof dilemma and trade-off the thinking in place is dominated by either–or. To break the straightjacket of the bipolarities in competing demands and to avoid choosing one demand over the other, based on monism, we will introduce the pragmatic philosophythatstressespluralismandintegration.Inaddition,we usepragmaticphilosophytogroundournotionofdesignthinking anditscomponentsthatenablesynthesizingbasedonboth–and, best-of-both,andneither–northinking(Stroh&Miller,1994).
2.3.Thepragmaticview
The pragmatismoriginated withCharles Sanders Peirceand was further developed with William James and John Dewey (Thayer,1970).WherePeircewasalogician,Jameswasaneducator andahumanistwhowishedtoforcethegeneralpublictorealize thatcertainproblemsaddressedinphilosophicaldebateshavea real significance for mankind, because the beliefs that they promoteleadtoverydifferentmodesof conduct(Thayer,1970, p.28).Forexample,inrelationtomonismand pluralism,James (1907, in Thayer,1970, p. 29) argued that monism demands a rationalistic temperament, leading to a fixed and dogmatic attitude.Pluralism,however,leavesroomforcontingency,liberty, andnovelty,givingafreedomofaction,whichcanbeindefinitely extended.Pluralismacceptsunitywhereveritmaybefound,but doesnotattempttoforcethevastdiversityofeventsandthings intoa singlerationalmold.James(1907) claimedthatif aman cherished novelty, risk, opportunity, and a variegated aesthetic reality, hewouldcertainly rejectany beliefin monism(Thayer, 1970,p.29).
Pragmaticphilosophy ismetaphysicallyevolutionaryand can be seen in Dewey’s theory of inquiry. Dewey stressed the continuityandprogressionofwhathecalledawarrantedassertion and argued that conclusions of any inquiry are continuously renewed(Dewey,1938a,1938b,p.21).Besides,hestated,“thereis no such thing as a final settlement because every settlement introduces theconditions ofsome degreeof a newunsettling” (Dewey,1938a,1938b,p.63).Therefore,things–speciesandthe environmentatlarge–areevolving.Becausethereisnofixityor stasis,pragmatistsconsiderchangeandprocessasfundamental.
Themetaphysicalimplicationofpragmatismleadsustotakethe futureintoconsideration.Thisinturnleadstotheconceptionofa universe whose evolution is not finished, but is rather still, in James’sterms,“inthemaking”or“intheprocessofbecoming”.
Fig.1.Generalapproachesofdealingwithcompetingdemands.
Thisisauniversethatis,uptoacertainpoint,plastic(Dewey,1931, inThayer,1970,p.33).
Inorganizationtheory,thisnotiongivesrisetotheideathatan organizationisnotsetinstone.Morespecifictoparadoxtheory, theargumentwouldbethatorganizationscouldaimforCwhile engagingAandB.AimingforCimpliesthatorganizationsarenot constrainedby“whatis”butratherthattheyshouldalsotakeinto account “what might be”. Similarly, knowledge, for Dewey, is gainedasa resultofanon-going and self-correctingprocessof inquiry.Consequently,thecurrentexplanationorsolutiontothe problemistheonethatmakesthemostsenseorselectsthebest given the situationat hand.This is what Pierce referred toas
“inferencetothebestexplanation”.Forthispaper,thistranslatesas thefactthatthesolution(asacreativealternative)toourproblem (of paradoxical tensions)is temporary. The possibility of error, Pierceargued,providesuswithreasontobe“contritefallibilists”, aware that any of our opinionsmay, for all we know, require revision in the future and that a theory cannot be stated as unconditionally true. This resonates with the notion that we shouldengageparadoxicaltensions insteadof tryingtoresolve them(Smith,2014;Lewis&Smith,2014).Similarly,engagingboth demandspreventsonedemandfromprevailingovertheother.So suchmentalitykeepsorganizationalmembersontheirtoes(Clegg etal.,2002)becausethetensionissustainedratherthanresolved.
In this line of argument, pragmatism and pragmatists suchas Dewey rejected the sharp dichotomies such as thought and experience, mind and body (Putnam,1994), tough-mindedand tender-minded, and pragmatism is presented as a mediating philosophythatenablesustoovercomethedistinctions(James, 1907[1979]).Theepistemologyofpragmaticphilosophyembraces fallibilism and valuesopen-mindedness; the reasonfor this, as discussed above,is that the warranted assertion is fallible and variable.Accordingly,thefocusofepistemologicalinquiryshould notbeonshowinghowwecanpossessabsolutecertainty;instead, weneedtounderstandhowwecanpossessmethodsofinquiry thatcontributetoourmakingoffallibleprogress(Thayer,1970;
Pappas,2008).
Therejectionofmonismandadoptionofpluralismsupportthe integrative perspective, which is useful in dealing with the paradoxicaltensions.Furthermore,thefallibilistepistemologyis ourfoundationfortheopennessmindsetthatservesasabuilding blockofdesignthinking.Inanintegrativeperspective,thereisan unexpected juxtaposition whendealing withtensions. Besides the mindset accents, the message is that there is always somethingundiscoveredandthatthereisacreativealternative that,currently, doesnot exist. Thisfits with abduction which, accordingtoHansen(2008,p.456),suggests,“somethingmaybe” instead of deductively proving “what must be” or inductively showing “what something actually is”. The latter two are consideredas formallogicthatdominatedthescholarship and hasbeen strong in “making an argumentandproving a case” (Martin,2009,p.63).Hansen(2008,p.456)sawthethreelogics as being rooted in different schools of thought, namely, pragmatism (i.e., abductive), Cartesian (i.e., deductive), and empiricism(i.e.,inductive).
Accordingly,theideasofpragmaticphilosophyandtheworksof traditionalpragmatistssuchasPierce,JamesandDeweycanbe usedasinspirationtotheoreticallygroundthebuildingblocksof designthinkingthatwebelievecanfacilitatethesynthesisofthe paradoxicaltensions.Specifically,Pierce’sworkonabductionand Dewey’sworkoneducation(individualfreedomvs.socialcontrol;
playfulness vs. seriousness), aesthetics (consummatory experi- ence),ethics(integrativebalance),andtheoryofinquiry(logicasa progressive discipline) are central to our conceptualization of designthinking.Inthenextsection,wewillexplainourversionof designthinking,whichisinspiredbypragmatism.
2.4.Designthinking:thedesignandmanagementdiscourse
The term design thinking has been part of the collective consciousnessofdesignresearchsincePeterRoweuseditinthe late1980s(Dorst,2011).HerbertSimon,however,laidthebasis,in his book ‘The Sciences of the Artificial’ (1996[1969]). Simon (1996)[1969],p.111claimedthat“everyonedesignswhodevises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” Although design thinking is relatively new to fieldsoutsideofdesign,ithasbeenslowlyevolvingandcoalescing over the past decade in organization and management studies (Martin,2009).Ithasbeenusedtoaddressopen-endedchallenges facedbytoday’sorganizations(Dorst,2011).Forexample,Martin (2009)propagateddesignthinkingasawayoffindingacreative alternative when organizations deal with competing demands.
Similarly, BolandandCollopy(2004) arguedin favorof“design attitude”claimingthatthe“decisionattitude”thatbroughtusto wherewearecannottakeustowherewewanttobe.
SimilartoSimon,Neumeier(2009)claimedthatanyone who tries toimproveasituationisadesigner.Consequently,designthinking canbeunderstoodasthinkingasadesignerwould(Dunne&Martin, 2006;Martin,2009).Similarly,Brown(2009,p.86)defineddesign thinkingas a “disciplinethatuses thedesigner’s sensibilityand methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customervalue andmarketopportunity”.Meanwhile,Lookwood (2010, p. xi) referredto design thinkingas “applying designer’s sensibilityandmethodstoproblem-solving,nomatterwhatthe problem is.” As highlighted in these quotations, the increased interestindesignthinkingoutsideoftherangeofdesignhasledto differentconceptionsthathaveattimesbeenvagueandfuzzy(Hassi
& Laakso, 2011). The fuzziness has resulted from the diverse background ofkey figuresinthe field,their epistemology,their audience, and their academicconnections (Johansson-Sköldberg etal.,2013).Althoughpractitionersadvocateitsrelevancebasedon personalexperienceandanecdotalevidence,scholarshavedoubted itsrelevanceandmadecriticalremarks(Carlgren,2013).Toeasethe elusiveness,HassiandLaakso(2011)andJohansson-Sköldbergetal.
(2013)vieweddesignthinkingastwoseparateentities;thatis,the designdiscourseandthemanagementdiscourse.
The design discourse focuses on the cognitive aspect of designing, whereas the management discourse uses design thinkingasa managementapproach.Johansson-Sköldbergetal.
(2013)used“designerlythinking”toexplainthedesigndiscourse which focuses onprofessionallyeducated designers,whilethey use “design thinking” to describe the emergent management concept focusing on multidisciplinary teams of professionals outsideofthetraditionallytraineddesigners.Designerlythinking, therefore,focusesonthewaydesignersthinkastheywork,while designthinkingisamanagementconceptandamethodthatmay facilitate innovation.Accordingly, Hassiand Laakso(2011, p. 6) recapitulated the common elements of design thinking in the management discourse aspractices (human-centered approach, thinking by doing, visualizing, combination of divergent and convergent approaches, and collaborative work style), thinking styles(abductivereasoning,reflectivereframing,holisticview,and integrative thinking), and mentality (experimental and explor- ative,ambiguity tolerant,optimistic,andfuture-oriented). More recently,Carlgren(2013,p.65)describeddesignthinkingas“aset offivecoreprinciples(human-centeredness,diversity,problem- framing, experimentation, prototyping) that are enacted and embodiedthrougha numberofmindsets,practices,andtechni- ques.”Based onsuchworks andin relationtothechallengeof engagingcompetingdemands,designthinkingisconceivedasa management practice in which the interplay of perspective, process,structure,andmindsetisusedtohelporganizationsdeal
with paradoxical tensions. In this respect, Dunne and Martin (2006)feltthatdesignthinkinginpracticecouldhelpmanagers cope with the classical challenges of dealing with competing demands,suchasexplorationandexploitation.
This papertherefore highlightsthe relevance of design thinking in organizationsandorganization studies.More specifically,design thinking,asconceptualizedinthispaper,helpsorganizationsand organizational members deal with a time-tested and central challenge of engaging paradoxical tensions. Designthinking, as conceptualizedinthispaper,seeksawaytoengagereliabilityand validity,artandscience,intuitionandanalysis,andexplorationand exploitation(March, 1991;Martin,2009),simultaneously.Similarly, oneof theworldleadingdesign firms,IDEO, avows thatdesign thinkingprovides an integrated third way (as denoted by C inFig.1). It should,however,benoted that thenotionofdesignthinking isdriven bypractitionersanditsconceptionisstillnewandnotfullyformed.
Nevertheless,our argument is thatorganizational memberscan drawonandbeinformedby theapproachesandthemindsets unique to design thinking when dealing with paradoxical tensions.
Moreover,our interest intheconcept of designthinking,which westressisrootedinpragmatistphilosophy,alsoillustrateshowit promotes synthesizing inresponse toparadoxical tensions.Fig.2and thesubsequentdiscussionshow how thecomponents ofdesign thinkingengagecompetingdemands(asaparadox)andhowthis interplaycouldleadtosynthesizing.
2.5.Perspectivesinorganizations
Perspectives refer to organizational members’ processing of informationinawaythathelpsthemidentifyanddefineproblems toconceivesolutions (Westenholz,1993).Suchperspectivesare reflectedinthestructure(bureaucraticoragile)andprocess(linear oriterative)ofanorganization.Inrespecttomanagingtensions, thissectionillustratestherelationshipbetweentheorganization’s designandtheassociatedperspectivesbehindthedesign.Table1 showsthealternative(mostlyopposingnotionsasclassicaland contemporary)perspectives,andweshowhowneitherofthemis equipped to deal with competing demands and the resulting tensions.
Schön(1983)discussedthedistinctionbetweenmanagement science and the art of managing that influences professional practice.Managementscienceisbasedontechnicalrationalityand reliesonanapplicationofrigorousscientifictheoryandpractice aimed to solve a problem. This perspective, however, has limitations, and he stated that it is incomplete as it fails to accountforpracticalcompetenceindivergentsituations(Schön, 1983,p.49).Forthatreason,hediscussedasecondperspective, namely,theartofmanaging,whichis“implicitinartistic,intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty,instability,anduniqueness”(Schön,1983,p.49).This cannotbereducedtoexplicitrulesandtheories.Similarly,Dunbar andStarbuck(2006)discussedashiftfroma“focusonfit”toan
“emergingfit”perspectiveinorganizations.Accordingly,organiza- tionsthatfocusonfitemphasizealignmentandcongruencewhile organizations that concentrate on an emerging fit highlight iteration.Withtheemergingfit,managersbelievethatdesigning andtakingactionshouldbeintertwined.Inasimilarfashionbut focusingontheorganizationaldesignanditseffectoninnovation, Dougherty(2008)discussedsocialconstraintandsocialactionas perspectivesfromwhich toorganizeinnovation,explainingthat designbasedonsocialconstraintemphasizesboundaries,authori- ty,andrewardmechanisms,whereasdesignbasedonsocialaction emphasizesemergence,knowledgeableactionandself-fulfillment (Dougherty,2008,p.415).
Withaparticularfocusoncompetingdemandsandparadoxes, Martin(2009) discussedtwodominantperspectivesincontem- poraryorganizations.Thefirstisanalytical,anditsgoalismastery throughrigorousandcontinuouslyrepeatedanalyticalprocesses (Martin, 2009, p. 5).The indicators of mastery, which include planning,focus,andrepetition,requirerepeatedexperienceina particulardomain(Martin,2009,p.165).Theanalyticalperspec- tiveisbasedontheformallogicthatreliesoneither–orthinking.
Thus, it is unable tocomprehend thecomplexities inherent in paradoxes(Ford&Ford,1994;Lewis,2000).Theotherperspective isareactiontotheriseofanalyticalmanagementandiscentered onthedominanceofcreativityandinnovation.Attheheartofthis schoolisintuition—“theartofknowingwithoutreasoning”andit is regardedas“the worldoforiginality and invention” (Martin,
Fig.2.Buildingblocksofdesignthinking.
Table1
Classicalandcontemporaryperspectivesinorganizations.
Classicalperspective Contemporaryperspectives Authors
Managementscience Artofmanaging Schön(1983)
Focusonfit Emergingfit DunbarandStarbuck(2006)
Socialconstraint Socialaction Dougherty(2008)
Analyticalthinking Intuitivethinking Martin(2009)
Decisionattitude Designattitude BolandandCollopy(2004)
2009, p. 6).Originality, in this case, demands a willingness to experiment, spontaneity asa response to novelty, flexibility in ordertochangedirectioninresponsetonewinformation,andthe ability torespond toopportunities astheypresent themselves, eveniftheyareunexpected(Martin,2009,p.165).Followingthis lineofargumentand based onthework of thearchitectFrank Gehry, Boland and Collopy (2004) discussed two perspectives:
namelydecisionattitudeanddesignattitude.Intheirwork,they suggested that present-day managers should change their perspectiveandembracethedesignattitudeinsteadofjustbeing decision-makers.A decision attitude assumes that it is easy to comeupwithalternativesbutdifficulttochoose,whereasadesign attitudeassumesthatitisdifficulttodesignagoodalternative,but onceyou havedevelopeda greatone, thedecision ofwhich to selectistrivial(Boland&Collopy,2004,p.4).
Theaboveperspectives,classifiedasclassicaland contempo- rary,havepolarizeddesignelementsinthatfocusingonjustone perspectiveforcesorganizationstoleantowardsoneextreme,for example,intheirstructure(mechanisticvs.organic).Ourassertion isthat thecontrastingperspectives, andan organizationdesign basedontheseperspectives,arenotadequatetocreativelyengage competing demands. For example, Martin (2009) claimed that neitheranalysisnorintuitionalone is enough.Furthermore,he arguedthatanaspectofbothanalyticalandintuitivethinkingis necessarybut not sufficient.Consequently, engagingcompeting demands requires an integrative perspective that incorporates analyticalmasteryandintuitiveoriginality(Martin,2007a,b).
2.6.Thestructure
Theperspectiveanditsassociatedunderlyingassumptionsthat organizations embrace affect the way their structures and processesaredesigned(Galbraith,1995;Martin,2009;Tushman
&O’Reilly, 1996).Besides, these perspectives and theresulting assumptions are also reflected in the organizational members’ mindset.Fig.2 showstheinterdependenceoftheelements.For example,perspectiveaffectsthestructureandviceversa.Inthis respect, under the classic machine model (Morgan, 1986) and followingthechallengesoftheindustrialage,organizationswere designedtomeetthedemandofstandardizedproductswiththe objectiveofstabilityandpredictability(Weick,2004).Organiza- tions were therefore made up of layers of neatly separated compartments.CunhaandRego(2010)arguedthattheworkwas broken down into minute detail with standardized rules and procedures. Miles, Miles, Snow, Blomqvist, and Rocha (2009) characterizedthisperiodas“thestandardizationera”.Taylorism andmilitary-likemanagementgovernedthistime,andorganiza- tionmembersobedientlyfollowedrulesandprocedures.Inother words, there was a tendencyfor businesses tobe governedby instructions, with all decisions being issued by superiors and obediencetosuperiorsrequiredformembership(Burns&Stalker, 1961).Thisperiod,aspreviouslydiscussed,wasdominatedbythe classicalperspective,whichincludedanalyticalthinking(Martin, 2009)andfocusingonfit(Dunbar&Starbuck,2006)andwasbased onthesocialconstrainttoorganizationaldesign(Dougherty,2008) andmanagementscience(Schön,1983).
Incontrast,Yoo,Boland,andLyytinen(2006)arguedthatweare enteringaknowledge-basedeconomyinwhichorganizationsare facing high levels of dynamism. The coercive bureaucracy is therefore impractical in today’s innovation-intensive organiza- tions. The presence of a bureaucratic atmosphere in such organizations signals distrust and leads to myopic behavior (Dougherty, 2008,p. 417).Withincreasedenvironmental dyna- mismanduniquecustomer/businessneeds,suchorganizationsare de-structuring and adopting almost too little structure (Davis, Eisenhardt,&Bingham,2009).CunhaandRego(2010)arguedthat
suchorganizationsarecopingwithenvironmentaldynamismby using flexible networks of highly autonomous individuals and teams,andbystimulatingentrepreneurship.Thiscanbedescribed asanorganicmanagementsystemcharacterizedbyloose,fluidjob descriptions,highlevelsofcommunication,andfewrules(Burns&
Stalker,1961).Thus,suchorganizations,whicharedominatedby intuitivethinkers,aimforanemergingfit,takingthesocial-action perspectiveoforganizationaldesign(Dougherty,2008;Dunbar&
Starbuck,2006;Martin,2009;Schön,1983).
Theshiftinanorganization’sdesign,fromcoercivebureaucracy to post-bureaucracy, mimics the changing perspectives and assumptions about the environment that, according to Weick (2004),cannolongerbestableandpredictable.BarryandRerup (2006) alsoexamineddesignchangeovertimefromarelatively centricstreamthatstressedenclosureandmachine-likeprecision to an acentric stream that emphasizes open and dispersed composition.Thoughtheshiftisappropriate,excessivecultivation of theextreme positionposes a problemeven in aninnovative organization.OnecaseinpointisOticon’stransformationinthe early1990s.Oticonisoneoftheleadinghearing-aidmanufacturers inDenmark.Inorganizationstudiesliterature,itisknownforits spaghetti organization under the management of Lars Kolind (1988–1998) as CEO. In his quest to be innovative, fast and productive,in1990LarsKolindabolishedthecompany’s formal structure to create what was called a chaos organization. The organizationreflectedthecomplex,informal,andalmostanarchic organizing(Larsen,2002)thatis“emphaticallynon-hierarchical, chaotic, always changing and with no organizational diagram” (GouldMorgan,1994).ThebusinessmagazineFastCompany,inits 1996 issue, wrote, “It is hard to imagine a more disorganized organization than Oticon.” Thechangein organizational design transformedOticonand had quickandsubstantialperformance effects (Foss, 2003), as they moved from the position of the followertotrendsetter.In addition,theywereabletocutdown their product development cycle and time to market by fifty percent. However,thesuccessprovednotsustainable,asOticon became avictimofits structuralambiguityandsufferedlosses.
Profitabilityseemedtobeaproblem.Inresponse,theyappointed Niels Jacobsen as executive vice president in 1992 to institute stability andtobalanceoutthenewcreativeyetoverly flexible organizational design. Thespaghetti organizationwasgradually abandonedstartinginaround1996infavorofamoretraditional matrixorganization(Foss,2003,p.335).LarsKolindconcededthat afterhavingjustloosenedeverythingup,itwasdifficulttotighten thingsupagain.
The Oticoncase explainstheprecarious natureof extremes.
Giventheriskofone-sidedness,whenanorganizationleanstoo muchtowardsorganicstructuresitleadstochaosandrandomness (Cleggetal.,2002).Weick(1993)supportedtheargumentthattoo muchrelianceonorganicstructurecouldresultinconfusion.Such organizations,accordingtoStacey(2011),lackinternalcomplexity andhavefewinternalconnections.Consequently,initsextreme flexibility, the organic form cannot be a panacea despite its environmentaldynamism.Theorganicformresultsinafocuson explorationatthecostofexploitation(March,1991),onoriginality atthecostofmastery(Martin,2009).Thisisbecauseorganizations areparadoxicaland needanorganizingformthat engagesboth needs while dealing with the resulting tension. In this regard, Thietart and Forgues (1995) stated that some forces push an organizationtowardsstability(e.g.,planning,structuring,control- ling), whereas others push it towards instability (innovation, initiative, andexperimentation). Similarly, Stacey(2011,p.285) consideredorganizationstobecomplexsystemsontheedgeof chaos that simultaneously display the dynamics of order and disorder, stability and instability, regularity and irregularity.
Accordingly,thedesignofinnovatingorganizationsbasedononly
one dimension is not only incomplete but also incorrect (Dougherty,2008).Similarly,masterywithoutoriginalitybecomes mundane,likeseeingthesamethingthesameway:itisadead- end.Likewise,originalitywithoutmasteryisflaky,ifnotentirely random.So,thepowerliesinthesynthesis(Martin,2009,p.168).
As far as structure is concerned, without a paradoxical perspective,thedesignoptionswillbefixatedonthenotionthat increasingelementsofone(i.e.,theorganicorganizationalform) will decrease the elements of the other (i.e., the mechanistic organizationalform).Indoingso,conceptualizingtheproblemof competingdemandsbecomesatrade-off.Forinstance,Davisetal.
(2009) agreed to Gilbert’s (2005) notion that a decreasing structureresultinginamechanisticorganizationalformincreases theflexibilitythatresultsfromanorganicorganizationalform.In otherwords,theformthatdrivesoneinterruptstheother(Austen, 2009).Fromapragmatistperspective,Deweycalledthisundesir- ablestateofeithertheexcessordeficiencyofoneelement(suchas inhisphilosophy ofeducation: playfulnessandseriousness)an
“unaestheticvice”.
“Whenthereisexcessordeficiencyofeitherplayorwork,oran isolationofonefromtheother,theoutcomeisundesirable,that is, itisanunaestheticvice.On thesideofa play,theviceis
‘fooling’,namely,‘aseriesofdisconnectedtemporaryoverflows of energy dependent upon whim and accident.’ Excessive playfulnessbecomesthekindofindulgencethatbecomesan arbitrary and aimless fancy. The excessive flexibility and opennessinplaycanleadtodissipationordisintegration.On the sideof work,thevice isdrudgery.Whenworkbecomes drudgery,activitythatwas‘directedbytheaccomplishmentof adefiniteresult’becomesactivityundergoneasmeremeansby which to secure a result. In drudgery, the agent is not emotionallyorimaginativelyinvolvedinthepresentactivity, anditbecomesroutineandmechanical.Anexclusiveinterestin outcomes results in ‘activities in which the interest in the outcomedoesnotsuffusetheprocessofgettingtheresult.’In drudgery,thepresentactivityistakenasifitwereanecessary evil,whenendsareexternaltothemeans,theprocessofdoing lossesallvalueforthedoer.”(Pappas,2008,p,178–179).
GibsonandBirkinshaw(2004)andMiron-Spektoretal.(2011) explained this unaesthetic vice as treating the relationship in competingdemandsasatrade-offwhileitcouldhavebeentreated asa paradox toaccentuate thereinforcing and interdependent natureofcompetingdemands.Theunaestheticvice,thatis,the risk of one-sidedness, as exemplified by Oticon, signals why paradoxesmatter in designingorganizations. However,framing paradoxicaltensionsrequiresanewlanguageastheconventional language reaches its limits (Achtenhagen & Melin, 2003). As humanbeings,weneedconceptsand agrammartoarticulatea complexreality(Bengtsson,Müllern,Söderholm,&Wåhlin,2007).
In that sense, Smith and Lewis(2011) argued that paradoxical tensions become more salient when organizational members articulatetheircontentandexplicitlyframetheirmeaningassuch.
Unfortunately, the literature on competing demands and even paradox research still predominantly implies an either–or viewpointwhenusinga familiarlanguage.Fromtheorganizing standpoint,thismeansusingtheavailableoptions,suchasorganic ormechanistic,centricoracentric,althoughthesewordsfailto engage competing demands—especially paradoxes. Because of this,weconceptualizewhatwecallasymmetric organizational form that follows an integrative perspective to enable the synthesizingofparadoxicaltensions.
Weusetheconceptofsymmetryfromaqualitative,interactive, and aesthetic angle rather than the normal quantitative and mathematicalangle.Thelatterindicatesakindofequilibriumthat requiresanequalamountofAandB(Pappas,2008).However,it
doesnotinviteanyinteractionbetweenAandB,nordoesitrequire theelementstocoexist.Thatistosay:emphasizingAatonetime canbeexchangedbyreducingAatsomeothertime.Thisexplains whatiscalledtemporalseparation,sequentialambidexterity, or structural ambidexterity(Vande Van &Poole,1989; O’Reilly&
Tushman,2013)asawayofdealingwithorganizationaltensions.
In our case, symmetry, based on the conception of Dewey’s integrative balance, signifies the harmony or the aesthetically pleasing incorporation of the competing demands A and B.
Symmetry features areinforcing relationshipbetweenforcesin the tension (Pappas, 2008). What makes a symmetrical form different from the many forms of ambidexterity is that it is designedforparadoxandwithsynthesizinginmindratherthan separation(eithertemporalorspatial)todealwiththetensionof engagingcompetingdemands.
WiththepragmaticturnandaccordingtoDewey(1934),life overcomesandtransformsfactorsofoppositiontoachievehigher significance.Achievingthathighersignificanceavoidstheextreme positions of excess or deficiency when dealing with tension (Pappas,2008);inthiscase,thesynthesisofcompetingdemands.
Suchsynthesis,accordingtoDewey,isnotsomethingthatresults fromamechanicalprocessbutisrathertheresultofalternating between needs. Consequently, when dealing with paradoxical tension,arhythmicalternationbetween,e.g.,disunityandunity exists.The rhythm,in that sense,implies apattern of iterating betweencompetingdemands,suchasmasteryandoriginality,and resultsin a thirdelement that integratesboth, suchas artistry (Austen,2010).ForDewey,accordingtoPappas(2008,p.175),“the questionishowtoliveinaworldwhereAandBarepresentand intermixed.”Rhythmisthenamatterofbringingaboutacomplete andconsummatoryexperience.Dewey(1934,p.179)statedthat symmetry is the equilibrium of counteracting energies and involvesrhythm.
In ourcase, this symmetry showsthe rhythmic interchange betweenmasteryandoriginalityinadifferentlayerofinterpreta- tionthatistranslatedintoanorganizationalcontext.Structurally, weconceptualizesymmetryasanimprecisesenseofharmonious and aesthetically pleasing proportionality. It denotes Dewey’s qualitative,interactiveandprocessualintegrativebalance(Pappas, 2008,p.172)andengagesbothstabilityandchange.Consequently, weproposeasymmetricorganizationalformasanalternativeto theclassicmechanisticororganicorganizationalforms(Burns&
Stalker, 1961),orthecentricoracentricorganizationalforms(Barry
&Rerup,2006)inordertodealwithparadoxicaltensions.Sucha structural form facilitates reframing, in which organizational members assume simultaneous coexistence of conflicting and interrelatedforces,andaimstocreateathirdthatintegratesthe bestofboth(Janssens&Steyaert,1999).Thisstructuralfeatureof designthinkingsupportstheintegrativeperspective.Webelieve that it urges organizational members to accept and embrace paradoxes,muchasthemechanisticstructureforcesmembersto focus,maintainfit,andkeepactivitiesseparated.Whenorganiza- tionsandtheirmembersacceptandembraceparadoxes,therewill be less chance that the relationships between the competing demandswillbeasymmetricalandtheorganizationschizophrenic (Cleggetal.,2002).
2.7.Theprocess
Inthissection,wewilldiscussabductionand thereframing thatconstitutestheprocessaspectof dealingwithparadoxical tensions. Abduction, introduced by Peirce (1839–1914), is considered tobethefavoredlogicconnectedtoLewis’s(2000) transcendence,andithelpsusexpandourstrategiesfordealing withparadoxicaltensions.Abductionis“theprocess offorming an explanatory hypothesis and, compared to other forms of
inference,theonlylogicaloperationthatintroducesnewideas” (Peirce,citedinHansen,2008).Transcendenceimpliesacritical examination of deep-rooted assumptions about tensions to construct a more accommodating perception of competing demands (Lewis, 2000). Therefore, approaching paradoxical situations requires a reasoning that views the situation in a widerperspective.Thisreframingis,therefore,basedonthebasic principlesaddressedinabductivereasoning.Itcanbeexplained as back-and-forth movements (iteration) in the value-creation process,aswellaszoominginandout(contextualization)when lookingattheproblemathand.
InadditiontoHansen’s(2008)explanationofthethreeschools of thoughtand theirassociated logics (Pragmatism—abductive;
Cartesian—deductive;andEmpiricism—inductive),Martin(2009) alsoexplainedabductivereasoninginrelationtodeductiveand inductivereasoning.Deductivelogic–thelogicofwhatmustbe– reasonsfromthegeneraltospecific.Inductivelogic–thelogicof what is operative – reasons from the specific to the general.
Abductivelogic–thelogicofwhatmightbe–isamodalreasoning;
its goalis to posit what couldbe true. Hanson (1959,cited in Hansen,2008)explainedabductionastheactofmerelysuggesting thatsomethingmaybe,whereasdeductionprovesthatsomething mustbe,andinductionshowsthatsomethingactuallyisoperative.
Abduction,accordingtoKolko(2010),isanargumenttothebest explanation.Itisthehypothesisthatmakesthemostsensegiven the observed phenomenon (Kolko, 2010, p. 20). Accordingly, abductionisalogicalwayofconsideringinferenceorbestguesses, and it allows for the creation of new knowledge and insight (Hansen, 2008; Kolko, 2010). Martin, Hansen and Kolko’s descriptionsharmonizewiththefundamentalideabehindPeirce’s notionofabduction,whichisaprocessthatallowsforthecreation ofnewknowledgeandinsight.Accordingtothispaper,theuseof abductionexplainstheunexpectedjuxtapositionandthenovelty ofacreativealternativewhenfacedwithparadoxicaltensions(as exemplifiedbyRedHat).
Inrelationtodealingwithparadoxicaltensions,Dorst(2011,p.
527) stated that the process of dealing with such a problem requires a reframing of the situation. Reframing refers to the
“impositionofaqualitativelynewframeworkortemplateonsome particulardomain,a newlensfor seeingand understandingit” (Bartunek, 1988,p. 137).Forinstance,reframingcouldshiftourway ofseeingcompetingdemandsfrombeingatrade-offtoaparadox, that is, tobe awareof the contradictions and interrelatedness.
Reframingthroughaparadoxicalviewmeans“remainingacutely aware of contradictions and anomalies and expanding our strategies”(Lewis,2000,p.771).Inthislight,viewingcompeting demands as paradoxes may offer challenging, even ground- breaking experiences, pushing us to question approaches that oversimplifyandover-rationalizecomplexphenomena.Inthecase ofRedHat,withouttheuseofreframing,Youngcouldhavebeen stuckwiththeavailableopposingoptions.Bychanginghisframeof mind, (i.e., by reframing) he was able to see the simultaneity, interrelatednessand untappedpotential in the juxtapositionof bothmodels.
OurreframingargumentalsofollowsLewis’s(2000) ideaof expanding our strategies of dealing with paradoxical tensions that, as discussed above, requires alternating perspectives on differentlayersofinterpretation.Thisisbecauseusingthefirst- order logic and rationality that aims for consistency and completeness – analytical thinking (Garud, Jain, & Tuertscher, 2008;Martin,2009)–cannot(andwillnot)giveussynthesis.This is also true for the logicbased on originality that is intuitive thinking.Thesetwoconceptsmainlydealwithonesideofacoin thatis deemed as precarious extreme (Andriopoulos &Lewis, 2010).Theintegrativeperspectivethen,togetherwithreframing andabduction,re-examinesfundamentalassumptionsregarding
the way organizational members conventionally deal with paradoxesandparadoxicaltensions.
2.8.Themindset
In addition to changing perspective, engaging paradoxical tensionsthroughreframingandabductivereasoningalsocallsfor anappositemindset.Thismindsetmaybeconsideredahabitual mentaloutlookthatdetermineshowoneinterpretsandresponds tosituationsandisseparatefromthecognitivecompetenceand logicthatarehighlightedintheprocessaspectsofdesignthinking.
Dealingwithparadoxicaltensionscanbeconsidered‘wicked’in the sensethat there arecontradictory values and fundamental indeterminacy(Buchanan,1992),whichcallsforopenness.Ifwe taketheexampleofdesigners,anopenmindsethelpsonetosee things from multiple perspectives. Being open also means questioningthestatusquo:theoldoptionsarenotgoodenough.
Consequently,theystrivetocreatethenextgreatthing.Thebasisof open-mindedness as part of design thinking is, as we see it expressed in the fallibilist’s epistemology of pragmatism, that
“whatis”isnottheonlythingthereis.Weshouldstrivefor“what couldbe”ratherthanseethework“asitis”.FromtheRed Hat example,thetwomainoptionswerenotenoughforYoung.He lookedfornewoptionsthatintersectedthetwoandwastherefore in the mindset of “what could be” instead of “what is”.
Alternatively,oneshouldconsidertheparticularitiesofeachcase ratherthanonlyone’searlierexperiencesof“whatwas”and“what is”,meaningthateachnewparadoxicalsituationrequiresastance thatisopentotheuniqueelementsofthepresentsituation,i.e., open-mindedness.
Thisopen-mindednessrealizesthatthereisalwayssomething
“undiscovered”withintensions.Bydevelopingsuchamindset,an organization and its members can develop a more extensive repertoireofresponseswhileengagingcompetingneeds.Froman organizing perspective, such a mindset indicates that the organization and its design are not setin stone but are rather anemergingentitythatistemporarilydesignedtostimulateaction andinteraction.Accordingly,thenotionofdesignthinkingcanbe consideredastentativeandeverchanging.Theorganizingeffort enrichedbydesignthinkingisthusanunfinishedbusiness,which isnecessarybecauseitisbasedonthecontinuoussearchfornew creative alternatives. The mindset that realizes that there is a creative alternativethat doesnotexist nowcorrespondstothe fallibilist pragmatic epistemology by which individuals should remainopen-minded.InPeirce’sconception,suchamindsethasto dowiththebeliefofindividuals,anditiswhatguidestheirdesire and actions(Thayer,1970).Besides, “what-is” is fundamentally tentative, and it is subject to change. This is related to the suggested process component of design thinking (i.e., the abductive reasoning)thataccentsthe temporaland provisional nature of “what could be” and thereby is more modest in its composition.
3.Discussion
Inthispaper,webeganwiththeaimofachievinganincreased understandingofcompetingdemands,specifically ofparadoxes, andof howorganizationsandtheirmemberscanapproach and dealwiththeresultingtensions.Wespecificallysituateddesign thinkinginorganizationstudiesanduseditasaconceptualbridge toshowhowwecanuseittodealwithparadoxesandparadoxical tensions.Todothat,weillustratedthebuildingblocksofdesign thinking,namely,anintegrativeperspective,asymmetricorgani- zationalform,aprocesscharacterizedbyabductionandreframing, andanopen-mindedmindset.Whenframedinthatway,design thinking couldilluminate a context thatenables organizational
memberstosynthesizeparadoxicaltensions.It alsofocuses our attention towards an integrative perspective that engages the broadboth–andviews(Sanchez-Runde&Pettigrew,2003;p.245;
Stroh&Miller,1994).Fig.2showshowourconceptualframework ofdesignthinkingisassembledwhenaimingforsynthesizingasa creativealternative.
3.1.Puttingittogether
Considering againour focusonorganizationsand howthey dealwithparadoxicaltensions,wehaveindicatedhowdealing withparadoxicaltensionsiscrucialtoinnovation(Andriopoulos
&Lewis,2009;Normanetal.,2004;Tse,2013;Garudetal.,2011).
Inspiredbypragmaticphilosophy,wearguethatdesignthinking canfacilitateavirtuousresponsewhenorganizationsandtheir members are confronted with the paradoxical tensions. The integrativeperspectiveindesignthinking–basedonboth–and, best-of-both, and neither–nor logic (Stroh & Miller, 1994) – supportsthepragmatistnotionthattheavailableoptionsarenot adequateandthattherearenewpossibilities.Theopen-minded mindset supports the integrative perspective, and the process of abduction, which is based on “what could be” rather than based on “what is”. Consequently, the strategy of “creating”
somethingnewratherthan“choosing”fromtheavailableoptions (Boland & Collopy, 2004) evolves from the addressed open- mindedmindset.
With open-mindedness,organizational members acceptthat thetension thatresultsfromcompetingdemandswillneverbe completelysolved.Infact,whenviewingcompetingdemandsas paradoxes, organizational members do not seek to resolvethe tensionirreversibly(Cameron& Quinn,1988).On thecontrary, paradoxicaltension is ongoing, which is whyorganizationsare alwaysdevelopingwaystorecognizethistensionandmanageit.
Thesolutionis alwaystemporary andprovisional. Asdescribed usingabductivelogic,thesolutionistime-limited.Theevolution- ary pragmatist viewpoint stresses that things (e.g., customers, technology)willchangeinthefuture;eventheenvironment is goingtochange.AccordingtoDeweythebalanceinthesynthesis can be understood as “not as a state of rest, but a matter of correctingtendenciesthatpushusindifferentdirectionsandthe riskoffallingintoimbalanceisconstant.”(Pappas,2008,p.183).In thesameway,Austen(2010)stressedthattensionsarenotsolved permanently.Tensionsareongoingwhichimpliesthatorganiza- tions need torecognize and managethem throughprovisional creative alternatives. Consequently, ourargument for synthesis stressesbothcohesionandasenseofcontinuity(Kolko,2010),and it prevents stagnation or chaos whenever either one of these demandsisgivenprimacy.
Asisconceptualizedinthispaper,designthinking,therefore, can be used as an organizational resource (Kimbell, 2011) to facilitatethemetaskill of beingable toface competingmodels (Brown,2009).Themainfeatureofthismetaskillisthatinsteadof choosingonemodelovertheother,itaimsforathirdsolution.This wasexemplifiedbythecreativealternativeintheillustrationof RedHat.Thatsynthesizedmodelencompassednotonlyelements frombothopposing,yetinterrelatedmodels,butalsoframedthe problemdifferentlyandcreatedathirdmodel.This“third”model iswherethetranscendence–asexplainedbyLewis(2000)–to approaching paradoxes lies. When we simultaneously engage competing demands, the synthesis will not simply be the imposition of one position or compromise between different positions.Rather, thesynthesis implies a creative anddifferent understanding that is both novel and appropriate for the organizationinitssituatedcontext(Bartunek,1988,p.153).This, however, occurs when the problem of competing demands is framedfroma paradoxicalangle. Furthermore,adopting design
thinking,asoperationalizedinthepaper,facilitatesapotentialfora creative redefinition of the problem that leads to a creative alternative.Morespecificallyitprovidesspacefororganizational memberstotranscendthetension.Sucheffortisinstrumentalin positioning paradox as a metatheoretical perspective (Lewis &
Smith,2014)andgoesbeyondthetraditionalperspectiveof“one bestwayofdoingthings”andthecontingencyperspectivebased on“if–then”insights(Smith&Lewis,2011;Lewis&Smith,2014).
Our contextualization of the paradox literature in pragmatic philosophyhelpsusdelineateandexpandthecoreelementsand theunderlyingassumptionsofparadoxasametatheory.Usingthe classicalpragmatists’viewwehavehighlightedtheapproachto tensions,core premises,mindset,and the overarchingquestion raisedinparadoxtheory.
4.Conclusion
Inthispaper,wearguedforthe“powerofands”—howthinking intwo’scouldfacilitatethesimultaneouscoexistenceofcompeting demands.Giventheincreasedpressuretoengageboth,wefocused particularly onthe approach of seeingcompeting demands as paradoxes.Thisapproachemphasizesnotonlythecontradictions butalsotheinterrelatedness,thereinforcingrelationshipandthe sustained tension of engaging competing demands. Given the dominanteither–oroutlookincompetingdemandsandwithouta cleardescriptionoftheresultingtension,wearguethattherewill beatendencytosuppressoneneedthat,inturn,intensifiesthe pressurefromtheother.Therefore,weproposedesignthinkingas a platform that encourages focusingon both sides.Apart from choosing one over the other (i.e., either A or B) or oscillating betweentwooppositesinasinglecontinuum(WhenA,orwhen B?), we welcome the notion of engaging A and B and even extending the inquiry by asking “why not C?” C represents a creative alternative or synthesis of paradoxical tensions that incorporatesthebestofbothworlds.
Designthinkingispresentedasanumbrelladescriptionofthe interplay betweenperspective, structure, process, and mindset thatenablesthesynthesisofparadoxicaltensions.Thekeypoint here is that a synthesis is based on “creating” rather than
“choosing”,which supportsthe pragmatistnotion that thereis alwayssomethingundiscovered.Thesameistruewiththeprocess aspectsofabductionandreframing.Throughusingsynthesisasa wayofdealingwithtensionfromcompetingdemands,organiza- tionalmemberslookattheresultingtensionfromaparadoxical angletodevelop acreative alternativebasedontheintegrative perspective.Inaddition,webelieve,atleastconceptually,thatthe symmetricalorganizational formprecipitatesamovementaway from the contingency approach (when A, or when B?) that is currentlydominantintheoryand practice,and towardsa more integrativeandparadoxicalapproach.
4.1.Theoreticalandpracticalimplications
Itisnecessarytostressthatsynthesisshouldnotbeseenasthe default response to all tensions emanating from competing demands. For example, it might not be suitable if one’s conceptualizationofcompetingdemandsisadilemma,inwhich casetheresponsewouldbetochooseoneovertheother.Similarly, forpracticalreasons,whencompetingdemandsareunderstoodas trade-offs,onemightaimtocompromiseandfindamiddleground.
Inourview,synthesisworkswhenthegoalofanorganizationis peakperformanceintheshorttermwhilereinforcinglong-term success(Smith&Lewis,2011).Inthiscase,competingdemandsare perceived as paradoxes and approached by management with
“both–and”thinking.Inthispaper,synthesis,althoughessentially challenging,isproposedasawayofoperationalizingtheboth–and
