Guest editorial

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to introduce this special themed section which explores the relationship between contradiction and organizational change. Design/methodology/approach -This paper analyzes the four papers included in this special themed section, drawing links between the different texts. Findings -A review of the papers shows that they contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of organizational change by focusing on how contradictions manifest themselves and how they are managed in various change contexts. Originality/value -This introduction provides readers of the themed section with an overview of the four papers.

Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve

“…Although different types of paradoxes and responses have been theorized, the way that paradox evolves (Demers, 2007; Groleau et al, 2011) and, particularly, the unfolding association between different types of paradoxes over time (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008; Smith and Lewis, 2011) remain a conundrum. While Putnam (1986) suggests that paradox escalates from the communicative actions of actors to become embedded in systemic contradictions, others such as Clegg et al (2002) propose a more structurationist (Giddens, 1984) association between the structures that shape action and the structuring behavior of actors.…”

“…Our research advances knowledge by examining how these types of paradox shape each other as they unfold over time (Groleau et al, 2011). It also examines how defensive and active types of responses exacerbate or help to balance the paradoxical tensions experienced by managers in different organizational units and levels.…”

The Colors of Change Revisited: Situating and Describing the Theory and its Practical Applications

“…Where some view such complexity as a destructive force, others appreciate its potential for making organizations more innovative (e.g. Groleau et al 2011;Jay, 2013). We recognize how both possibilities are quite real.…”

Generating tensions: A multilevel, process analysis of organizational change

“…Putnam et al (2016) observe that process studies of tensions and organizational change embrace multiple perspectives (Farjoun, 2010; Groleau et al, 2011; Seo and Creed, 2002). Dialectics and paradox theory are two commonly used approaches (for a comparison, see Farjoun, 2017).…”

“…This view of change, particularly when intertwined with the growth of research on paradox and dialectical tensions (Langley et al, 2013), problematizes multiple organizational levels and unintended consequences. Putnam et al (2016) observe that process studies of tensions and organizational change embrace multiple perspectives (Farjoun, 2010;Groleau et al, 2011;Seo and Creed, 2002). Dialectics and paradox theory are two commonly used approaches (for a comparison, see Farjoun, 2017).…”