Visibilizing and Invisibilizing Paradox: A process study of interactions in a hospital executive board

Abstract

Studies on organizational paradoxes often explain paradox salience exogenously, as a state of latency awaiting detection. Based on social systems theory, this process study develops an explanation of paradox salience and latency beyond an actor’s cognitive ability to think paradoxically. Such an explanation lies endogenously within the interactions of actors coping with paradox. Analysing the discussions of a hospital executive board during a change initiative reveals how factual, social and temporal references surface and submerge contradictory tensions. The proposed model for visibilizing and invisibilizing paradox explains salience and latency – even if individuals are aware of paradox – as integral to coping with paradox. As a paradox invisibilizes in an interaction it resurfaces somewhere along the line and thereby transforms within an organization.

Resourcing Under Tensions: How frontline employees create resources to balance paradoxical tensions

“…First, we identified all episodes in which tensions were 'visible' (Tuckermann, 2018). We coded either for (a) a customer expressing dissatisfaction about the way things were done or how the interaction proceeded; and/or (b) frontline employees describing during the interview a tension resulting from how she or he was supposed to act versus how the customer would have liked her or him to act.…”

“…By illustrating how employees' construction of tensions and their resourcing practices as a response are interrelated, we also complement research on responses to tensions (Child, 2019;Bednarek et al, 2017;Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017;Sheep et al, 2017;Tuckermann, 2018). With the help of resources that have situational meaning, situational reframing allows frontline employees to interactively downplay the tension between contradictory demands by 'minimizing the interaction between the two' (similar to the 'splitting' response) (Jarzabkowski et al, 2013, p. 256).…”

The Generative Potential of Luhmann’s Theorizing for Paradox Research: Decision Paradox and Deparadoxization

“…Nevertheless, despite the focus on paradoxical latency, Luhmann (2018), unlike mainstream paradox theory, points to generative effects such as paradox concealmentenabling paradox to remain latentas critical in avoiding paralysis and enabling actors to treat decisions as reference points in an ongoing flow of experience. Thus, rather than requiring salience in order to generate responses to paradox, Luhmann (2018) suggests such responses are possible only and occur only in the absence of salient paradox: "invisibilizing is integral to coping with contradictory tensions" (Tuckermann, 2019(Tuckermann, : 1869. Such concepts enable a fruitful extension of paradox theorising to considering not only salience but also latency as a key means of working actively with paradox.…”

“…While Luhmann's writings on organizational paradox are very well known in the German-speaking world and have also been used by some international organization scholars (e.g. Aakerstrom Andersen 2003;Czarniawska 2005;Rasche 2007; Rasche & Seidl forthcoming), they have received surprisingly little recognition within the paradox community (for a rare exception, see Tuckermann, 2019). Indeed, in the two recent extensive reviews of the paradox literature (Schad et al 2016;Putnam et al 2016), there is not a single reference to Luhmann's work.…”

Interdisciplinary Dialogues on Organizational Paradox

“…Building on the seminal contribution by Smith and Lewis (2011), various studies have helped articulating the dynamics through which underlying but latent tensions are made salient by conditions of plurality, change, resource scarcity and actors' cognition. Some have focused on the role of paradox mindsets, the capacity to accept and built on contradictions, as a determinant of effective responses to salient paradoxes (Miron-Spektor et al, 2018), while others have highlighted the role of social constructions in determining salience of paradoxes, focusing on managerial decisions (Knight & Paroutis, 2017), social networks (Keller et al, 2020), micro-practices (Smets et al, 2015;Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017), discursive interactions (Tuckermann, 2019). Considering the relationship between latency and saliency helps considering organizational paradoxes as both grounded in systems and materiality (Schad & Bansal, 2018) and shaped by social production of meaning (Pradies et al, 2020) or by the imposition of impossible challenges (Gaim et al, 2019).…”