ups (Kuckertz et al., 2010) and Spanish SMEs in the optometry and telecoms businesses (Cegarra-
Navarro & Dewhurst, 2007).
The term paradox has been used as a metaphor or an analytical tool to explain findings from Peters
DQG:DWHUPDQ¶V(1982) study, who found that on a long-term basis, those organizations which were
capable of reconciling tensions were most successful (van de Ven & Poole, 1988). Following a
symposium at the Academy of Management conference in 1985, Cameron (1986) published a journal
SDSHURQ³(IIHFWLYHQHVVDVSDUDGR[ ́DQG4XLQQDQG&DPHURQ(1988) HGLWHGDYROXPHRQ³3DUDGR[
DQGWUDQVIRUPDWLRQ ́3DUDGR[ZDVLQWURGXFHGWRFKDOOHQJHOLQHDUFDXVH-and-effect thinking and the
assumption of equilibrium (Quinn and Cameron, 1988). This first collection of ideas and possibilities
on what paradox is and how to thrive on paradox in organization theory was followed by a number of
SXEOLFDWLRQV VXFK DV ³3DUDGR[ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH ́(Denison et al., 1995), complemented by
practitioner-GLUHFWHG ERRNV VXFK DV ³7KH DJH RI SDUDGR[ ́(Handy, 1994). Reviewing studies from
1990 to 1997, Davis et al. (1997) found that the term was used in over 300 major publications. Smith
and Lewis (2011) argued that paradox is becoming a more paramount lens, given the contemporary
context of globalization, innovation, hypercompetition and intricate environments. Smith and Lewis
(2011) define paradox as contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist
over time. This definition highlights two components of paradox: (1) underlying tensions, elements
that seem logical individually but inconsistent and even absurd when juxtaposed and (2) responses
that embrace tensions simultaneously (p.382).
,QGHDOLQJZLWKSDUDGR[HV³DEVROXWHUHFRQFLOLDWLRQLVXQZDUUDQWHGDQGFRXQWHUSURGXFWLYH ́(Graetz &
Smith, 2007, p.13). Individuals apply formal logic based on internal consistency, polarizing the
elements to stress distinctions rather than interdependencies. Most thinking has been shaped through
IRUPDOHGXFDWLRQV\VWHPVWKDWKDYHEHHQJHDUHGWRZDUGWHDFKLQJSHRSOHWKH³RQHULJKWDQVZHU ́(Von
Oech, 1983). However, stressing one polarity exacerbates the need for the other, often sparking
GHIHQVHVDQGHQJHQGHULQJFRXQWHUSURGXFWLYHUHLQIRUFLQJF\FOHV³6WD\LQJZLWKWhe paradox makes it
possible to discover a link between opposing forces and opens up the framework that gives meaning
WR WKH DSSDUHQW FRQWUDGLFWLRQ ́(Vince & Broussine, 1996, p.4). In that sense, managers can take
paradoxes as their guiding principle by avoiding a decision between the two opposite poles. Instead,
the simultaneous pursuit of both extremes is regarded as the most suitable way for an organization to
GHDOZLWKLWVHQYLURQPHQW7KXVWKH³HLWKHU-RU ́GHYHORSVWRZDUGVDSDUDGR[LQWKHVHQVHDVDQ³DV-
well-DV ́(DFKSROHLVRSSRVLWHWRWKHRWKHUEXWUHJDUGLQJWKHLUTXDOLW\ DQGRIWHQDOVRWKHLUH[LVWHQFH
they are dependent on each other. Therefore both solutions can be regarded as complementary.