This document discusses managing paradoxes and tensions in leadership. It introduces a workshop that aims to help managers understand and deal with complexity in organizations. It defines paradox as contradictory elements that exist simultaneously, unlike dilemmas which require choosing one alternative. The workshop covers three levels of paradox - organizational, role, and individual. Attendees discuss tensions they experience and ways to understand and work through paradox, such as acceptance, integrative thinking, and positioning. Effective paradox navigation requires skills like reflection, communication, and embracing conflicting demands. Global leaders must think paradoxically to accommodate complexity rather than suppress tensions.

1. 2014
Confederation of
Danish Industry
DI – Dansk Industri
Leadership paradoxes
in a global world
Face contradictions and
balance managerial tensions
THINK GLOBALLY,
ACT LOCALLY,
PANIC INTERNALLY

2. Workshop objectives and goals
Objectives:
• Introduce paradox thinking as a framework for exploring and understanding
organizational and managerial tensions
• Expand managers’ tool box to deal more constructively with increasing
complexity
Goals:
• Aid understanding of and ability to deal with divergent perspectives and
disruptive experiences created by the complexity of organizational life
• Provide a mindset and tools for identifying, making sense of, and
managing paradoxes
• Discuss leadership paradoxes in own context and gain new perspectives
2

3. Program
3
Andrea Straub-Bauer
Bente Toftkær
•Introduction
•What is paradox?
•3 levels of paradox
•Paradox in own
context I
What is paradox?
•Working through
paradox
•Paradox in own
context II
Understanding
paradox? •Ways of dealing
with paradox
•Paradox in own
context III
Dealing with
paradox?

4. 4
Think long-term
Innovate
Think global
Collaborate
Individual performance
Decentralize
Directive
Deliver short-term results
Improve efficiency
Act local
Compete
Team excellence
Standardize
Democratic
Global leadership requires balancing
contradictory needs and requirements

5. 5
John is the VP for Health and Safety of a globally operating
technical equipment provider. He is in charge of rolling out
corporate health and safety standards across the organization’s
production facilities located in 10 different countries, incl. North
and South America, Europe, and Asia.
Aligning processes and procedures across Europe and the USA
has been challenging, but nothing compared to the
implementation of standardized procedures in Asia and South
America. Time and time again, John experiences tensions
created between HQs corporate CSR strategy and its global
commitment to high safety standards and its low-cost production
focus in emerging market locations.
What is at stake here? What types of tensions can be identified?
Global roll-out of corporate
health and safety standards

6. Paradox – what is it?
Paradox
• Contradictory yet interrelated
elements (dualities) that exist
simultaneously and persist over
time
• a “both-and” situation
between two or more
contradictions where a synthesis
or choice is not possible or
necessarily desirable
Dilemma
• Competing choices, each with
advantages and disadvantages
• an “either-or” situation
where one alternative must be
selected over other attractive
alternatives
6
A
B

7. Paradox in own context I
7
Group activity:
Discuss briefly what type of
tensions or divergent pressures
you experience in your
organization right now.
How does that affect you?

8. Three levels of paradox
8
Leadership role
Competing demands/behaviors
expected from managers in
their leadership roles
Individual
Personal pressure experienced
between individual and collective
identity and/or values
Organizational
Nature of organizational life with
competing organizational
designs and processes
Source: Inspired by L. Lüscher (2012) “Ledelse gennem Paradokset”
.
. . .
INDIVIDUAL
ROLE
ORGANIZATIONAL

9. 1. Organizational paradox
9
internal external
flexible
focused
Source: Model based on
Competing Values Framework, L.
Lüscher (2012) “Ledelse gennem
Paradokset”

10. 2. Role paradox
10
Source: Model based on
Competing Values Framework, L.
Lüscher (2012) “Ledelse gennem
Paradokset”

11. 3. Individual paradox
Individual paradox has a personal
dimension
• Relates to relationship of individual managers
with the organization, management, and peers
as well as the task
• Often experienced as contradictory dynamics,
e.g. disconnect between words and deeds
• Involves emotions, personal experiences, and
values between the individual and the group
• Personal paradoxes include e.g.
• trust vs. control
• being popular vs. being unpopular
• job security vs. new challenges
• personal interests vs. company interests
• optimism vs. problem focus
• competing vs. collaborating
11
Source: L. Lüscher (2012) “Ledelse gennem
Paradokset”
INDIVIDUAL

12. Program
12
Andrea Straub-Bauer
Bente Toftkær
•Introduction
•What is paradox?
•3 levels of paradox
•Paradox in own
context I
What is paradox?
•Working through
paradox
•Paradox in own
context II
Understanding
paradox? •Ways of dealing
with paradox
•Paradox in own
context III
Dealing with
paradox?

13. Working through paradox
13
Source: Lüscher, L. & M.W. Lewis (2008). Organizational Change
and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox.
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51, No. 2, 221-240.
A process of helping to make
sense of tenuous demands
to reduce anxiety, escape
paralysis, and enable action
MESS
Problem
either orDilemma
Paradox: both-and
Workable
Certainty

14. 14
Facts Action
Behavior Vision
MESS
Problem
either orDilemma
Paradox: both-and
Workable
Certainty
Identifying the mess and extracting
the problem: A questioning strategy for analyzing the problem
Source: Attractor Model inspired by Karl Tomm’s Framework for
distinguishing 4 groups of questioning (1988)

15. • What was the situation about?
• Who was involved?
• For how long?
• What did it mean to you?
• What did you do to deal with it?
• What worked out well?
• What was the hardest lesson learned?
• What was the prize?
• What did you win?
Facts Action
Beha-
vior
Vision
Discovering the FACTS
Source: Attractor Model inspired by Karl Tomm’s Framework for
distinguishing 4 groups of questioning (1988)
15

16. • How did your stakeholders play their
part in the dilemma?
• Who had risked the most?
• Where in the process did you feel the
strongest need to choose between the
competing values?
• What did you learn about the
”either/ors”?
• What did you learn about the possibility
of ”both/and”?
Facts Action
Beha-
vior
Vision
Discovering the BEHAVIOR
Source: Attractor Model inspired by Karl Tomm’s Framework for
distinguishing 4 groups of questioning (1988)
16

17. • Let us imagine that you are most
capable of managing this kind of
situation in the future, what would be
most characteristic for the situation?
• If you should see this situation from a
totally different point of view, what will
you see that you could not see before?
• What does the vision look like which
could encourage you to do more of
”both-and” and less of ”either-or”?
Facts Action
Beha-
vior
Vision
Discovering the VISION
Source: Attractor Model inspired by Karl
Tomm’s Framework for distinguishing 4
groups of questioning (1988)
17

18. 18
• What needs to be challenged in the
way of dealing with competing values
in the future?
• What needs to be directed in a more
decisive manner by you? By your
manager?
• If your stakeholders and you were to
achieve even better results the next
time, what would be the most
important thing to do a little different?
• What kind of positive difference would
that make to you? To others?
• If you should take one small step
towards an improved pay-off-balance
(”both-and”) what would that be?
• When will you do it?
Facts Action
Beha-
vior
Vision
Discovering the ACTION
Source: Attractor Model inspired by Karl
Tomm’s Framework for distinguishing 4
groups of questioning (1988)

19. Paradox in own context II
19
Group activity:
Discuss the new insights that
you have gained in relation to
handling the tensions that you
experience in your organization
right now.
MESS
Problem
either orDilemma
Paradox: both-and
Workable
Certainty

20. Program
20
Andrea Straub-Bauer
Bente Toftkær
•Introduction
•What is paradox?
•3-levels of paradox
•Paradox in own
context I
What is paradox?
•Working through
paradox
•Paradox in own
context II
Understanding
paradox? •Ways of dealing
with paradox
•Paradox in own
context III
Dealing with
paradox?

21. Ways of dealing with paradox
… requires exploring rather than suppressing tensions
1. Acceptance
2. Integrative thinking
3. Positioning
21
In order to avoid paradox paralyses: Paradox must be solved
through alternative ways of thinking

22. 1. Acceptance
22
• Embrace and live with paradox
• Regard paradox as a persistent and
unsolvable puzzle
• Engage anxiety and thereby face
challenges surfaced by tensions
• Discuss tensions to foster more
creative considerations
Paradox is a pre-condition of
organizational life, especially in a
global business world

23. 2. Integrative thinking
23
• Consider divergent ideas and/or
alternative poles simultaneously
• How can apparently opposing
views be brought together and
combined in new ways?
3rd solution through innovation
and creative thinking
MESS
Problem
either orDilemma
Paradox: both-and
Workable
Certainty

24. 3. Positioning
Conscious positioning at
one pole and actively
distancing from another
based on strategic, human
or organizational
considerations.
Turning your back on one
alternative and accepting
the consequences
24
internal external
flexible
focused
X

25. Critical skills sense making and giving
• Reflection – consider multiple
dynamics and perspectives for
spotting and dealing with paradox
• On the personal level
• On the organizational level (maturity)
• Courage and resilience
• Communication (what, how, who)
• Behavior – ”walk the talk”
25

26. Paradox in own context III
26
Share in your group the reflections
that you’ve had in terms of “how to
deal with your own paradox”?
Can you see an opening for
1) integrative thinking and/or
2) positioning?
What are the consequences?
How will you communicate it:
1) to whom?
2) what is the key message?

27. Closing reflections
What does it take from …?
Individual leader
• Ability to recognize and accept
interrelated relationships of
underlying tensions
• Emotional stability, courage,
maturity, and integrity
• Communication skills in order to
reduce anxiety in others
• Ability to self-reflect and
embrace conflicting demands
Organization
• Collective tools that allow
members of the organization to
seek and integrate new
information through distinct
structures, cultures, learning
processes, and managerial
capabilities
• Maturity => Ability to make
room for, balance, live with, and
capitalize on conflicting and
competing elements
27

28. Global leader paradox navigator
… is an influential actor
capable of thinking
paradoxically, guiding
social reflection, helping
others examine tensions,
and accommodate
complexity rather than
suppressing it.
28
”

29. Further readings
• Lüscher, Lotte (2012) “Ledelse gennem Paradokset – om ledelsesmæssig handlekraft
i organisatorisk kompleksitet”, Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.
• Smith, W.K. and M.W. Lewis (2011) ”Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic
equilibrium model of organizing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 2,
381-403.
• Lüscher, L. & M.W. Lewis (2008) ”Organizational Change and Managerial
Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 51,
No. 2, 221-240.
• Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., DeGraff, J., and A.V. Thakor (2006) “Competing Values
leadership: Creating value in organizations”, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
• Lewis, Marianne W. (2000) ”Exploring Paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 4, 760-776.
• Lewis, M.W. and G.E. Dehler (2000) ”Learning through paradox: A pedagological
strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity”, Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 24: 708-725.
• Tomm, Karl (1988) “Interventive Interviewing: Part III. Intending to Ask Lineal, Circular,
Strategic, or Reflexive Questions?” Family Process, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1-15.
• Quinn, Robert E. (1988) “Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and
competing demands of high performance”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.
29

30. More information about GLA
www.globalleadershipacademy.dk
30