Reconciling social enterprise: beyond the paradox perspective

PurposeThe paper aims to critically review the increasingly taken-for-granted view of social enterprise (SE) as inherently paradoxical and tackles the research question as follows: are the tensions experienced by SE and social entrepreneurs (SEnt) actually paradoxical and if not, what are the implications for theory and practice?Design/methodology/approachA paradox theory (PT) approach has been utilized to explore the implications, validity and helpfulness of the paradox perspective in understanding and managing the tensions that are inherent in SE.FindingsConceptualizing the primary tension of doing social good through commercial activity as a paradox is argued to be a limiting misnomer that conspires to reify and perpetuate the tensions that SE and SEnt have to manage. Drawing upon PT, the findings of the paper reconceptualize these tensions as myths, dilemmas and dialectics, which are subsequently used to develop a more complete ontological framework of the challenges that arise in SE and for SEnt.Practical implicationsReconceptualizing the “inherent paradoxes” of SE as either dilemmas or dialectics affords a means of pursuing their successful resolution. Consequently, this view alleviates much of the pressure that SE managers and SEnt may feel in needing to pursue commercial goals alongside social goals.Originality/valueThe work presents new theoretical insights to challenge the dominant view of SE as inherently paradoxical.

Theorizing compassionate leadership from the case of Jacinda Ardern: Legitimacy, paradox and resource conservation

During times of suffering such as that inflicted by the COVID-19 pandemic, compassion expressed by leaders helps to ease distress. Doing so, those in a position to provide resources that might facilitate coping and recovery are attentive to the situations of distress. Despite an abundance of leadership theorizing and models, there still is little academic literature on compassionate leadership. To address this limitation, we present an exploratory case study of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, someone widely recognized for her compassionate leadership and frequently described in paradoxical terms (e.g. ‘kind and strong’; embodying ‘steel and compassion’). We address her compassionate leadership through the lenses of paradox theory, legitimacy theory and conservation of resources theory. We contribute a heuristic framework that sees various types of legitimacy leveraged synergistically to build resources and alleviate suffering – providing further legitimacy in an upward spiral of compassionate leadership.

The South Asia Stability-Instability Paradox Under the Nuclear Shadow

Cross-border clashes between India and Pakistan in 2019, and between India and China in 2020, have placed a spotlight on theories about the stabilising and destabilising effects of nuclear weapons. The experience of the India-Pakistan dyad, and now that within the India-China dyad, is that despite the apparent risks of nuclear escalation, nuclear-armed adversaries may still be prepared to engage in limited, but deadly conventional or sub-conventional conflicts under the nuclear shadow. This paper uses stability-instability paradox theory to explain the mechanics of this apparent paradox and to discuss how these relationships may evolve in future.

Looking at Team Improvised Adaptation Through a Paradoxical Lens: The Role of Team Plasticity

When time is of the essence and teams face unexpected contextual changes, they must adapt quickly, sometimes even in real time, that is, they may have to improvise. This paper adopts an inductive approach to explore how teams decide to engage in improvised adaptation, and what happens during those processes for improvisation to be successful. The study analyzes improvisation from the perspective of paradox theory and identifies six paradoxical tensions driven by these contexts: deployment, development, temporal, procedural, structural, and behavioral tensions. We propose a dynamic equilibrium model of team improvised adaptation that leads to team plasticity. By properly managing the paradoxical tensions emerging from the convergence of design and execution, teams become more plastic and able to cope with sudden change. These findings contribute to adaptation and improvisation literatures by delving into the adaptation process under the temporal and material confluence of design and execution.

Toward understanding three phases of individual responses to paradox

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to further paradox research at the individual level through applying a framework of three phases of individual response to paradox – recognition, understanding and behaviour.Design/methodology/approachCritical and integrative review of previous studies of individual responses to paradox.FindingsThe role of individual understanding is limited in extant research on individual responses to paradox. Individual understanding tends to be equated with behaviour, and thus knowledge of understanding is not differentiated enough, neither is the link between understanding and behaviour sufficiently developed.Research limitations/implicationsThe review does not consider the relationship to interactional, organisational and environmental contexts. The recommendation for future research is to explore individual responses to paradox more entirely, to provide an adequate ground for extending paradox theory across individual and broader levels of analysis.Originality/valueThe review contributes to paradox theory by separating individual understanding and then providing a framework in which recognition, understanding and behaviour can be reintegrated in new ways. In addition to more accurate discernment of individual understanding and of combinations of responses across phases, the three-phase framework facilitates investigation of more intricate influences across phases and paths of evolution of such responses over time.

Entrepreneurship, Conflict, and Peace: The Role of Inclusion and Value Creation

Conflict zone entrepreneurs—local entrepreneurs running small businesses in conflict settings—have paradoxical impacts on stability: holding the ability both to foster peace but also to enhance conflict. Prior scholarly work has been unable to explain this divergence, as existing entrepreneurial indicators do not account for fundamental peacebuilding elements. In response, the article consolidates divergent fields of study, applies paradox theory to analyze underlying tensions in the field, and reframes entrepreneurship through a peacebuilding lens based on intergroup inclusivity and value-creating business practices. Using several cases, this article shows how entrepreneurial activity in conflict zones can foster sustainable peace, limited peace, or conflict, arguing that entrepreneurship based on value-creating and inclusive practices can result in pro-peace outcomes. The article offers policy recommendations for local governments and the humanitarian sector seeking to use entrepreneurship in conflict zones to promote peace.

Generic Paradoxical Tensions, Appraisals, Work Motivation, and Performance: Insights From a Weekly Repeated-Measures Study

Drawing on the paradox theory, the author developed a theoretical model of appraisal–motivational responses to generic paradoxical tensions. The author postulated that paradoxical tensions are appraised both as a challenge and as a threat, in turn prompting mixed effects, positive and negative, on performance. The dual effects of paradoxical tensions are explained by the intermittent role of motivation toward work and a dispositional boundary condition—individual' adaptability—cross-situation variability of behaviors. The results from an eight-wave weekly repeated measures study spanning a period of 2 months (N = 178, total observations = 1,355) provided support for the proposed theoretical model. By illuminating the nuanced intraindividual psychological process, the present study brings forward novel insights on cognitive appraisals and motivations of paradoxical tensions advancing microfoundation of the paradox research.

(mis)Management of multiple tensions and coexisting conflicting dualities during restructuring: a paradox theory perspective from an emerging economy

PurposeOrganizational scholars are intrigued about stakeholders who propose multiple and conflicting ideas about what is good for their organization. Such contradictions are called paradoxical tensions. Although researchers have singled these out for analysis, focusing only on individual tensions prevents scrutiny of multiple paradoxical tensions that simultaneously emerge and how effectively organizations can manage them. In complex environments – especially during an organizational restructuring – multiple and interrelated tensions occur. Therefore, the objective in this paper is to investigate how organizations create multiple paradoxical tensions and how the combined effect of such tensions can constrain organizations during restructuring. The authors thus aim to help managers think reflectively and to plan interventions to deal with issues arising from restructuring through the lens of paradox theory.Design/methodology/approachThe authors adopted purposive sampling for an archival research-based case study of a major restructuring of a leading IT firm in India in the decade 2009–2019. This study focused on the types of paradoxes created and the response of the organization to these during the restructure. The authors identified key events using public documents and news reports from that decade. They drew on two sources of data: mainstream media coverage and third-party documents about the company. The latter included monographs and academic publications written by critics, business historians and design and management scholars.FindingsThe findings address the gaps in the literature about how reorganizing during a restructure shapes the contradictions that lead to tensions and coexisting conflicting dualities, creating paradoxes. This study provides the reader with deeper insights into belonging, organizing, learning and performing tensions – core to paradox theory – along with their short- and long-term implications for organizational restructuring. The study demonstrates organizational responses to paradox and its practical implications for managers. The paradoxical nature of cultural–structural tensions in Indian organizations continues to be researched but, by focusing on paradox theory, the authors have opened doors for future research.Originality/valueAlthough there is no dispute that effective management of tensions can facilitate organizational performance, contradictory demands that lead to tensions have only intensified as organizational environments become more global, dynamic and competitive. Paradox theory is thus valuable for understanding tensions between equally valid principles, inferences and insights. Although this paper is based on a case study, the framework proposed here can form the basis for theoretical generalizability within certain limitations. Because organizations face similar paradoxical situations under competing demands during restructuring and because paradoxes are becoming increasingly prevalent in organizations, the authors expect their propositions to apply in other cases of restructuring. However, the authors would like to caution that the model developed here should be tested and refined in other contexts to more fully establish its validity and generalizability.