Paradox in Positive Organizational Change

Abstract

Positive organizational change is a paradox. On one hand, natural human inclinations toward the positive and heliotropic tendencies foster a proclivity toward positive change in human systems. On the other hand, human beings react more strongly to negative than to positive stimuli, so the presence of negative events overshadows positive events. Paradoxically, both tendencies—toward the positive and in response to the negative— are important enablers of positive change, but because the negative usually dominates, positive factors have to be given extra emphasis for positive change to occur. The concept of “positive” has created a great deal of controversy and confusion in organizational studies, spawning critics as well as promoters. The major connotations of this concept in organizational scholarship are clarified, and a way to reconcile the paradox of positive change is proposed. New investigations of positive organizational change are introduced that address various aspects of the positive change paradox.

Responsible Leadership as Virtuous Leadership

“…The rationale: ''We want to help, and we think that this is just the right thing to do'' (personal communication). Or, the approach to cost cutting and downsizing at Griffin Hospital in which a culture characterized by ''compassion, highest levels of integrity, forgiveness, and love'' was developed by the senior leaders as a result of the announced downsizing activities (Cameron 2008). Or, the Rocky Flats Nuclear Arsenal case in which leadership honesty, virtuousness, and personal concern were keys to an extraordinary, almost unbelievably rapid and effective clean-up and closure of North America's most dangerous location (Cameron and Lavine 2006).…”

“…In nature, this is exemplified by light from the sun. Several researchers have described the dynamics of individuals and groups that experience virtuousness (e.g., Cameron 2008;Eisenberg 1986;Hatch 1999;Leavitt 1996;Sethi and Nicholson 2001) proposing that under such conditions, individuals experience a compelling urge to build upon the contributions of others and to perpetuate a virtuous spiral (Fredrickson 2003(Fredrickson , 2009Erhard-Seibold 1937;Dutton and Heaphy 2003). Observing virtuousness creates a self-reinforcing cycle toward more virtuousness.…”

Positive global leadership

“…There is also now a stronger realization that positivity and negativity are paradigmatically distinct and not simply opposite ends of the same continuum (Cameron, 2008;Luthans & Avolio, 2009;Seligman &Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). A clear understanding of what positivity constitutes is a necessary prelude for conceptualizing a new framework for positive global leadership.…”

“…However, unlike the algebraic addition in our mathematical metaphor, where one unit of positivity can be balanced by one unit of negativity, the tipping point between human flourishing and languishing has empirically been found to occur at a positivity to-negativity ratio of about 3:1 in the workplace, 5:1 in complex settings (e.g., an executive team or multi-cultural interactions), and 6:1 in personal relationships (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005;Gottman, 1994;Losada & Heaphy, 2004). This need for a higher relative level of positivity can at least be partially explained by the prevalent negativity bias in human thinking that must be overcome (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001;Cameron, 2008).…”

Employee Transition Throughout an Appreciative Inquiry Intervention

“…Science" focussing on Positive Organisational Change, Cameron (2008) says that this particular kind of change "has grown out of the newly emerging field of positive organizational scholarship (POS). It refers to the investigation of positive dynamics, positive attributes and positive outcomes in organizations" (p. 7).…”