The idea that interdependent and persistent tensions are intrinsic to organizing is now well accepted. Organizational paradox theory has further stressed the importance of accepting such paradoxes, to convert them into generative forces. However, this recommendation assumes actors have full agency in responding to paradoxes and, therefore, overlooks the role of power dynamics. We expand on paradox theory by drawing attention to organizational pragmatic paradoxes: contradictory demands received within the context of an intense managerial relationship, such as when a subordinate is ordered to 'take initiative'. Our model highlights how organizational pragmatic paradoxes derive from power relations restricting actors' capacities for enacting legitimate responses to tensions. Specifically, we link different organizational power dimensions to various manifestations of pragmatic paradoxes. We further outline concrete actions for mitigating the occurrence of these pathological phenomena. Our conceptualization contributes to a critical reading of paradox theory that is sensitive to power inequalities. The capacity to manage paradoxical tensions-for example, exploitation and exploration, or competition and collaboration-has been described as the "ultimate advantage and challenge for organizations" (Andriopoulos & Lewis 2009, p. 709). Organizational paradox literature (see Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart 2016; Schad, Lewis, Raisch, & Smith 2016 for reviews) has demonstrated that paradoxes, defined as "persistent contradictions between interdependent elements" (Schad et al. 2016, p. 10), are an unavoidable consequence of organizing (Lewis 2000; Smith & Lewis 2011). The conceptual core of the theory, summarized in the "dynamic equilibrium model of organizing" formulated by Smith and Lewis (2011, p. 389), maintains that acknowledging the interconnectedness of opposite poles can promote organizational learning and transformation (Chen 2002; Farjoun 2010; Miron-Spektor, Gino, & Argote 2011). Challenging the assumption that organization is synonymous with order and linearity, paradox theory highlights the dynamic, complex nature of organizing (Lewis & Smith 2014). Despite the success of paradox theory, demonstrated by the growing number of publications it inspires (Fairhurst et al. 2016), preserving the vitality of this theory requires challenging its assumptions (Cunha & Putnam 2019; Schad, Lewis, & Smith 2019). In this paper, we focus on two of its limitations. First, we question the presupposition that individuals are free and able to choose how to engage with paradoxical tensions. Actors faced with organizational paradoxes have been observed to respond in various ways (Jarzabkowski & Lê 2017), with those who accept tensions demonstrating enhanced performance and innovation (Miron-Spektor, Ingram, Keller, Smith, & Lewis 2018). Therefore, accepting, rather than denying, the existence of paradoxes is believed essential in achieving sustainable outcomes (Smith & Lewis 2011). However, this view ignores the observation that, sometim...

This paper asks why there is so little collective dissent and mobilised resistance in the gig economy, especially when labour-based digital platforms are used. We suggest part of the answer lies with ‘management by algorithm’. Drawing on an empirical study of Uber drivers in Australia, we found that algorithms function as a form of biopower, a concept introduced by Michel Foucault. As Uber drivers ‘life processes’ are put to work, fragmentation, isolation and resignation ensue. We explore the implications that our findings have for appreciating how biopower operates within platform capitalism and beyond.

While organizational compassion has attracted increased scholarly interest over the past two decades, inherent paradoxical tensions have been largely overlooked. Transcendence of oppositions is widely recognized as the most effective paradox response. To gain insight about the transcendence of the paradoxical tensions in organizational compassion, we turn to the cultural context of Bhutan, where for centuries compassion has been held as a central virtue informing governance and daily life. Our analysis contributes to the literature on organizational compassion and on organizational paradoxes by (a) theorizing the application of Bhutan’s compassion transcendence strategies to the organizational context, (b) thereby engaging in cross-cultural analysis hereto overlooked in the organizational compassion literature, (c) highlighting paradoxes in compassion relations, and (d) providing a generalizable sociomaterial model for studying paradox transcendence.

Abstract:We chart the socio-material imaginaries and realities of a new Frank Gehry designed University of Technology Sydney Business School as both a space and a place. We review the broad sociological literature on space, considering its philosophical and conceptual parameters. Lefebvre's work is central to such discussion, a centrality that we do not so much question as extend by turning attention from a macro-historical conception of space to consider the specificity of place and placemaking, contributing our 'place in space' heuristic model. We apply the model empirically through analysis of the design and occupancy of the business school, highlighting elements that concurrently produce the phenomenology of space and place. Our findings suggest that while organizational space ensconces power and the production of relationships, the translation of these into an identity ordering place is not a linear process. 'Spatial narratives' characterizing the imagined functions of the building have been inconsistently materialized and different actors have re-inscribed alternative functions and meanings in this new place. Theoretically, the paper moves debate beyond the frame bequeathed by Lefebvre while building on it, proposing an analysis that affords equal emphasis to material elements (architectural features, furniture, policies) as to discursive elements (symbols, interpretations, narratives).

No abstract