Embedding Paradoxical Thinking in Business Schools

• Tapping into the power of paradoxical thinking—also known as both/and thinking—is one of the most valuable skills future leaders can develop in business school.
• Although a both/and perspective can inspire creative ways of viewing problems, leaders too often resort to either/or thinking, which can escalate tensions, stifle curiosity, and curtail critical inquiry.
• By modeling paradoxical leadership, business schools can better explore the nuances of problems, create novel solutions, and prepare future leaders to improve our world.

 
Businesses face competing, interwoven, and ever-rising pressures. They are expected to fuel excellence in their industries while working toward a better society and promoting inclusion. They must scale their operations globally, while honoring connections to their local communities. They must achieve strong financial results in the short term as they innovate for the long term.

It’s no wonder that today’s leaders need alternative tools, adaptable mindsets, and new insights to address thorny problems. And they increasingly call on business schools to provide that support.

Over the last 25 years, the two of us have conducted research that demonstrates an alternative approach.  As highlighted in a report on leadership, one of the most valuable abilities that today’s executives can learn in business school is how to tap into the power of paradoxical both/and thinking—that is, how to glean insights from the tensions that arise from conventional either/or thinking. Yes, it’s true that linear, formal, and logical thinking can be useful when determining the trade-offs presented by two or more alternative paths. But for addressing complex and dynamic issues, either/or thinking can be limited at best and detrimental at worst.

When leaders use either/or thinking, they tend to rely on conventional problem-solving approaches, such as analyzing alternatives, picking sides, and defending their points of view. Such approaches can trigger erratic debates, as people weigh opposing pressures and escalate their arguments for one side or another. Most perniciously, either/or thinking fosters polarizing and intractable conflict among co-workers and partners. It stifles, rather than inspires, curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking.

When college students, graduates, and faculty view complex problems in black-and-white terms, it only furthers society’s larger critiques of higher education. Such an approach reinforces the concern that academia is not teaching students to appreciate gray areas, complexities, and different points of view.

What has become increasingly clear in today’s complex world: Leading and thriving through tensions demands paradoxical thinking. In fact, AACSB’s Societal Impact Accelerator Committee has identified paradoxical thinking as a critical competency to teach future leaders.   

As we study today’s business leaders, the two of us have learned that individuals who embrace the paradoxes that underlie their greatest dilemmas tend to adopt more nuanced approaches to decision-making, achieve more sustainable and generative outcomes, and add greater value to society. They also tend to be more creative, productive, and satisfied with their jobs.

Of course, this is all easier said than done. Leaning into tensions, rather than trying to ignore or combat them, can raise anxiety, fear, defensiveness, and other uncomfortable emotions. In our work, we demonstrate how paradoxical thinkers find comfort in the discomfort and how they are willing to listen to and engage with people who express different perspectives.

These are skills that today’s business leaders need to better serve society. That’s why we believe it’s critical for us, as business educators and academic leaders, to embed paradoxical thinking into how we research, how we teach, and how we lead.

How We Research

Paradoxical thinking might seem like a recent idea in leadership, but it is not a new concept. In our own research, we constantly draw from ancient insights. For instance, more than 2,500 years ago, Greek and Taoist philosophers viewed interwoven opposites—such as day and night, pain and joy—as natural and valued; they appreciated the way these paradoxes enabled richness and spurred growth.

In 1989, management scholars Andy Van de Ven and Marshall Scott Poole wrote a foundational article noting that scholars too frequently adopted either/or thinking in service of clear, consistent theories. They challenged researchers to tap into their curiosity about underlying paradoxes. Van de Ven and Scott Poole asked scholars to harness their differences to work toward novel, generative theorizing.

Their recommendations are just as relevant today. Paradox theory offers methods that move scholars away from seeking out linear, analytical consistencies and toward embracing cyclical, holistic complexities.

Either/or thinking fosters polarizing and intractable conflict among co-workers and partners. It stifles, rather than inspires, curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking.

Over the past three decades, paradox science has advanced rapidly. Scholars around the world increasingly draw on paradox to inform scholarship, advancing our understanding of the nature of competing demands. They conduct research though a paradox lens, exploring the dynamic interplay of opposing tensions in organizations and drawing on multiple, divergent lenses and methods to address challenges from varied angles.

Likewise, studies of paradoxical approaches, such as organizational ambidexterity and improvision, and rigorous applied approaches, such as action and experiential research, are shining light on the opportunities that lie within tensions.

To help scholars and leaders develop their paradoxical thinking even further, we have worked with our colleagues Ella Miron-Spektor, Josh Keller, and Amy Ingram to create a tool called the Paradox Mindset Inventory. The inventory is intended to help individuals determine the likelihood that they will adopt both/and approaches as they try to solve complex problems. (We discuss this tool in a 2018 paper.)

Yet, in paradox community forums, we too often hear of pushback from journal reviewers and promotion committee members who are uncomfortable with scholarship based on less conventional, more holistic and dynamic approaches. Regardless, we are encouraged by ongoing innovations and humbled by the paradox of knowledge. The more we know, the more we know we don’t know. Much remains to be learned, then translated into business guidance and education.

How We Teach

The benefits of paradox science do not stop with research. They also extend into our classrooms. We implore business professors to integrate paradox insights into their teaching of undergraduates, graduates, doctoral students, and executives.

Unfortunately, either/or thinking pervades much of today’s business school curricula. Consider the traditional case study approach. Typically, a professor might introduce a case and then help students analyze the dilemma the case presents and explore potential solutions. Most often, there is no one right path to take. Any of the options available could be viable; each merely produces different consequences.

Within each case, the underlying assumption is that when leaders find themselves at a crossroads, they must choose one direction over another.

I (Wendy) discovered the benefit of paradoxical thinking early in my career, as I taught the Martha McCaskey case study. In the case, McCaskey, a young management consultant, knows that her firm has engaged in morally compromised behaviors. So, she faces what seems a clear dilemma: Should she remain at the firm, or should she leave?

I was grateful for one of the teaching notes that Joshua Margolis, a professor at Harvard Business School, includes on page 20 of the case. There, he offers an alternative that changes the possibilities that students can explore, posing the question as both/and rather than as either/or:  

“It’s easy to conclude that Martha McCaskey is in a no-win situation. Either she has to face up to the bitter truths of the real world, compromise her integrity, and get the job done …. or she sticks to her principles but has to sacrifice her job and a promising career. Let’s ask ‘What if?’ … What if … this was a problem that can be turned into an opportunity through creative and practical action? Come up with ways to complete this project successfully so that you can satisfy the client’s needs in a manner consistent with your values.”

This provocation pushes students to reframe their underlying assumptions about McCaskey’s dilemma. They are encouraged to move away from viewing the situation as one in which McCaskey must choose either her integrity or her career. Instead, they are invited to consider ways she can do both. They can explore the paradox of trying to balance morality (integrity, ethics) with instrumentality (career, achievement). They learn to seek other ways to resolve what seems like a paralyzing dilemma.

Business textbooks need to start introducing paradox theory as a core insight for students. Professors need to start reframing how they engage with students.

We have created several tools and videos that professors can use to teach both/and thinking in schools. While teaching paradoxical thinking may seem complex, it starts by changing the questions we ask our students and inviting them to move away from either/or questions to explore both/and possibilities.

How We Lead

Finally, business schools need leaders who can embrace paradoxes and navigate the complex forces shaping higher education. This is true especially now, as business schools face increasing pressure to advance their social missions while maintaining financial viability, achieve excellence while providing access, and develop theory while improving practice.

At the same time, academic leaders must ensure that each leg of the three-legged stool supporting their institutions’ operations—research, teaching, and service—stays strong. They must do this while balancing the contradictory yet interwoven demands involved with strategic planning, hiring, overseeing promotion and tenure processes, and allocating resources.

When students are invited to adopt both/and thinking, they learn to seek other ways to resolve what seems like a paralyzing dilemma.

In our executive workshops, we both emphasize four interwoven approaches that paradoxical leaders adopt to bring contradictory objectives into balance:

They change the question. Just as Margolis did in the McCaskey case, paradoxical leaders avoid framing dilemmas as either/or. They know that doing so limits dialogue, curtails exploration, and ultimately blocks potential solutions.

They separate opposing demands, so they can connect them in different ways. By exploring each demand separately, leaders can delve into and more deeply understand the value, distinctions, and nuances of each one. Paradoxical leaders then connect these demands in different ways in a creative search for unexpected synergies, in ways that reflect the shared purpose and common values of their organizations.

They reconsider the outcomes. Paradoxical leaders establish simple rules and core values to serve as guardrails that help guide their decisions. In doing so, they open up the potential to harness and creatively integrate the best of each possibility.

They embrace “consistent inconsistency.” In other words, they purposefully shift their attention within the guardrails they have created, between meeting immediate needs and seeking out future opportunities. In doing both, they can make sure that those they lead are always moving forward.

For instance, in my role as dean and through my research with Wendy, I (Marianne) have found it vital for academic leaders to embrace contradictions as they work to ensure student success; meet financial goals; allocate resources; empower faculty in their research, teaching, and service; and pivot between the demands of their colleges, their universities, and a wide range of other stakeholders.

I discovered this firsthand when my institution faced the need to change two legacy honors programs. Each program had passionate donors and alumni, but market research showed that the two programs fostered market confusion, program inefficiencies, and internal competition. As we shared these findings in open forums and private meetings, emotions ran hot. Many stakeholders were stuck in either/or thinking—most realized that the programs could not remain separate, but felt that a merger would be unacceptable.

At that point, I shifted the discussion, asking not how we should merge both into one, but how we could create a program that celebrated both distinct legacies. That shift sparked a flood of creativity that allowed us to move forward. We built an integrated honors program comprised of two Oxbridge-style “houses” that retained the original programs’ names and showcased their legacies, while presenting a unified program that modeled innovation and nurtured small, tight-knit communities.

Embracing Paradoxical Thinking

Like AACSB, we believe a paradox mindset is a vital competency for achieving societal impact and enabling systemic change. Our challenge now is to embed this competency in business schools, encouraging academic leaders to embrace “consistent inconsistency” in ways that serve the needs of their institutions and stakeholders.

As higher education institutions face increasing public criticism, business schools can model a type of leadership that seeks out divergent viewpoints, explores nuances, and creates novel solutions. It is only when we as administrators and faculty embrace this way of thinking that we can prepare future leaders to build better businesses, solve our most challenging problems, and improve our world.

Let’s continue to use both/and thinking as we research, experiment, and innovate. Together, we can change our questions and make unexpected connections across opposing views. We can seek and provide greater value and open up new possibilities for our future.