Duality Theory and the Management of the Change-Stability Paradox

This article proposes that duality theory plays a role in obtaining more nuanced and textured insights into the complex, paradoxical stability-change nexus by illustrating how tensions are managed not through definitive resolution toward one pole or the other, but through improvised boundary heuristics that establish a broad conforming imperative while opening up enabling mechanisms. Duality thinking also reinforces the need to discard assumptions about opposing values, instead replacing them with an appreciation of complementary concepts. The article explores the characteristics of dualities to allow managers to chart what they are seeking from their management interventions and subsequent choices in structural support systems. A key benefit of identifying and explaining duality characteristics comes in attempting to understand how to mediate between two contradictory dimensions of organizing, such as continuity and change. Our argument is that both need to be encouraged, but this requires a particular mindset where the problem of mediation viewed as the need to work towards simultaneity and synergistic mutuality rather than resolution of action between the two opposing dimensions.

[1]  Mary Ann Glynn,et al.  Pluralism and the Problem of Variety , 2000 .

[2]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[3]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[4]  R. Kahn,et al.  The Social Psychology of Organizations , 1966 .

[5]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis , 1983 .

[6]  K. Weick.  Improvisation as a Mindset for Organizational Analysis , 1998 .

[7]  C. Fuchs.  Structuration Theory and Self-Organization , 2003 .

[8]  David L. Deephouse.  To Be Different or to Be the Same? It's a Question (and a Theory) of Strategic Balance , 1998 .

[9]  K. Cameron.  Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness , 1986 .

[10]  Guest Editor's Introduction: Re-Imagining Change , 2013 .

[11]  Augustine A. Lado,et al.  COMPETITION, COOPERATION, AND THE SEARCH FOR ECONOMIC RENTS: A SYNCRETIC MODEL , 1997 .

[12]  Paul Evans,et al.  HRM on the Edge: A Duality Perspective , 1999 .

[13]  K. Cameron,et al.  Organizational paradox and transformation. , 1988 .

[14]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations , 1967 .

[15]  L. Melin,et al.  Innovative Forms of Organizing , 2003 .

[16]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[17]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms , 2001 .

[18]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[19]  W. Jackson.  Dualism, duality and the complexity of economic institutions , 1999 .

[20]  K. Weick,et al.  Introductory Essay : Improvisation As a Mindset for Organizational Analysis , 1998 .

[21]  W. Abernathy,et al.  The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock t o Znnovation in the Automobile Industry , 1978 .

[22]  Marianne W. Lewis.  Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide , 2000 .

[23]  Aaron C. T. Smith,et al.  The Role of Dualities in Arbitrating Continuity and Change in Forms of Organizing , 2008 .

[24]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[25]  E. F. Schumacher,et al.  A Guide for the Perplexed , 1977 .

[26]  Robert Chia,et al.  On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[27]  P. Nystrom,et al.  Camping on Seesaws: Prescriptions for a Self-Designing Organization , 1976 .

[28]  A. Pettigrew,et al.  Complexities and Dualities in Innovative Forms of Organizing , 2000 .

[29]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Time: A New Research Lens , 2001 .

[30]  J. Ford,et al.  Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. , 1988 .

[31]  D. Dougherty,et al.  Change and Development in a Pluralistic World: the View From the Classics , 2000 .

[32]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[33]  Jean-Louis Barsoux,et al.  The global challenge : frameworks for international human resource management , 2006 .

[34]  John W. Selsky,et al.  Duality and Paradox: Trust and Duplicity in Japanese Business Practice , 2006 .

[35]  If Price,et al.  Quantifying the complex adaptive workplace , 2004 .

[36]  K. Eisenhardt.  Paradox, Spirals, Ambivalence: the New Language of Change and Pluralism , 2000 .

[37]  Keith Grint,et al.  Determining the indeterminacies of change leadership , 1998 .

[38]  S. Clegg,et al.  Management Paradoxes: A Relational View , 2002 .

[39]  R. Stacey.  Emerging strategies for a chaotic environment , 1996 .

[40]  Robert MacIntosh,et al.  Conditioned emergence: researching change and changing research , 2001 .

[41]  J. Alexander,et al.  Images of Organization , 1988 .

[42]  Richard T. Pascale,et al.  Managing on the edge : how successful companies use conflict to stay ahead , 1990 .

[43]  Marshall Scott Poole,et al.  Alternative Approaches for Studying Organizational Change , 2005 .