Being subject to competing demands is a pervasive and inherent feature of managerial life (Beech et al.
2004; Jarzabkowski et al.
2013; Lewis and Kelemen
2002). Competing demands occur when management, depending on the use of limited resources or attention, requires more to be done than available resources suggest it is possible to do. Where competing demands are deemed to be of comparable importance for managers and decision-makers, tensions arise over resource allocation and prioritization (see Andriopoulos and Lewis
2010; DeFillippi et al.
2007; Jarzabkowski et al.
2013). For competing demands to be sensed as contradictory, it is not sufficient that demands be competing as there must also be managerial “perceptions of [their] opposing and interwoven elements” (Lewis
2000, p. 397). How they are dealt with depends on “how much time, energy, and effort go into one demand versus the other” (Putnam et al.
2014, p. 416). The struggle to meet competing demands has spurred many dichotomous abstractions in organization studies that require balancing such as exploration and exploitation (March
1991), efficiency and flexibility (Adler et al.
1999), empowerment (power to) and power over (Clegg et al.
2006), the management of order and chaos (Eisenhardt and Brown
1998), efficiency and flexibility (Adler et al.
1999), and managing evolutionary and revolutionary change (Tushman and O’Reilly
1996). For organization members, attending to both demands simultaneously does not necessarily mean engaging both demands to their full strength or with equal vigor (Burton et al.
2015; Clegg et al.
2002) or situating them in a new relationship as a novel approach (Putnam et al.
2016). There are subtle differences between conceptualizations of competing demands when they are addressed separately or engaged simultaneously (see Chen
2017). Managers perceiving tensions between competing demands may be torn between two poles of action when they attempt to attend to both demands at the same time (Carroll
2012). The risk is that one side of the competing demands requires the most immediate attention; an organization exclusively dedicated to exploration of new frontiers, for example, will expire in relatively short order if it fails to manage exploitation of what it already knows well. Similarly, an organization that creates value through exploitation will exhaust its stocks of knowledge in due course, as it is “outflanked” (Clegg
1989) by more exploratory rivals (see Martin
2004). Achieving both poles simultaneously is the managerial ideal promised by ambidextrous designs that enable organizations to accommodate competing demands in order to gain higher performance (Bøe-Lillegraven
2014; O’Reilly and Tushman
2013), despite the ideal being difficult to achieve, costly to maintain, and unstable in action (Burton et al.
2015; Gibson and Birkinshaw
2004).
The paper is structured as follows. We start by discussing the prevalence of competing demands in organizations, and their associated effects in different contexts and at different levels, stressing the need for conceptual clarity. Next, we discuss the most prominent theoretical conceptualizations. Using key references, we present the salient features and show how these can be used to re-conceptualize the contradictory effects of competing demands. Distilling these features provides a more nuanced conceptualization of the effects of competing demands and the resulting tensions. In concluding, we discuss the implications of having provided increased conceptual clarity, along with the theoretical and practical implications for organizational design.
A plethora of competing demands
The essence of organization design is that it be able to deal with contingencies. The management of competing demands is a contingency that frames organizational design (Jarzabkowski et al. (
2013). How competing demands, such as exploration and exploitation, are accommodated can be conceptualized in various ways, often with overlapping features, introducing a degree of analytical ambiguity and confusion. It is important to be able to distinguish between different types of competing demands. Cameron and Quinn (
1988) distinguish a situation that is one presenting paradox from other related concepts, such as those that pose dilemmas, prompt irony, generate inconsistency, foster dialectics, create ambivalence, or produce conflict. Others, such as Achtenhagen and Melin (
2003) identify distinctions among dualities, paradoxes, trade-offs, and dilemmas. More recent researchers on paradoxes, such as Smith and Lewis (
2011), distinguish paradox from duality, dilemma, and dialectic. Putnam et al. (
2016) emphasize that discriminating among these distinctions generates a “conceptual malaise” which they seek to resolve by offering definitions of various concepts such as tension, duality, dualism, contradiction, dialectics, and paradox. However, the precise conceptualization of these different demands remains elusive, as the distinctiveness of different conceptualizations cannot be easily delineated.
The way in which competing demands may be conceptualized—for example, as a dilemma or a paradox—implies the presence or absence of specific features. On the one hand, irrespective of representations, some aspects of the world may be experienced as paradoxical (Clegg
2002, p. 2) while, on the other hand, paradoxes that exist in reality might be obliterated by the label and conceptualization chosen to represent them (Clegg
2002, p. 2). In studying competing demands, organization members might be seen by some observers to be dealing with duality or paradox while others might see them as dealing with something different but equally distinctive (see, for example, Ashforth and Reingen
2014; Luscher and Lewis
2008). The conceptual vocabulary used to address competing demands remains somewhat prolix and ill disciplined. Such representational confusion means that in practice, when faced with such demands, organization members have no clear guidance as to whether to attend to them either separately—across time and space—or simultaneously. How competing demands are conceptualized and dealt with in practice challenges various design options. In the next sections we will briefly present the existing conceptualizations of competing demands that are commonly used in the literature and then outline their inherent, and to some extent overlapping, features.
Conceptualizations of competing demands
Conceptualizations of competing demands imply assumptions about the relationships between these demands—for example, whether they are oppositional or interdependent (Chen
2008). Moreover, different conceptualizations represent diverse options for ways in which organization members’ sensemaking might respond. For example, in classical studies in which it is assumed that there is one best way of doing things, these demands will be dealt with in terms of a decision as to which pole is the best one to prioritize at the expense of the other. However, given the increased complexity and nature of the environment, the “one-best-way” approach has given way to one in which organizations deal with multiple demands simultaneously or across time and space (Poole and Van de Ven
1989).
Various options present themselves. Using an either/or or both/and framing (Martin
2007; Putnam et al.
2016) or regarding responses as either defensive or active (Jarzabkowski et al.
2013) defines a specific situation differently, making different sense. When competing demands are conceptualized as dilemmas, they are framed as problematic, as problems to be solved (Li
2016, p. 47). An either/or situation presents itself, as one in which alternative must be selected at the expense of the other in a win-lose situation (Ashforth et al.
2014; Quinn and Cameron
1988). Dilemmas pose an incompatibility between competing demands that necessitates choice as a response (Janssens and Steyaert
1999; Westenholz
1993). Conceptualizing competing demands as trade-offs implies that achieving more of one demand means achieving less of the other (Gaim and Wåhlin
2016). In this view, responses must partially attend to one demand at the expense of the other, in the form of a compromise, with a moderate focus on either demand (Achtenhagen and Melin
2003; Ashforth et al.
2014; Eisenhardt
2000; Pache and Santos
2010). When competing demands are conceptualized in dialectical terms, a pattern is assumed that begins with a thesis, followed by its antithesis; the dialectic is then resolved through their synthesis
1 (Poole and Van de Ven
1989; Smith and Lewis
2011). The synthetic response resolves the tension temporarily or permanently. Synthesis consequently stresses similarities between demands while putting less emphasis on their differences. In a synthesis, according to Smith and Lewis (
2011), actors will ultimately favor one demand at the expense of the other. Conceptualizing competing demands as dualities means that their opposites exist within a unified whole (Smith and Lewis
2011). Duality can also refer to two essential elements that are interdependent and in which one enables the other (Farjoun
2010). The conceptualization of competing demands as paradoxes envisages the simultaneous and persistent coexistence of competing demands that are contradictory, yet interrelated (Schad et al.
2016; Smith and Lewis
2011).
Table
1 summarizes the various conceptualizations of tensions with key associated sources and definitions. In this table, the movement from dilemma to paradox indicates the change in theoretical perspective used to understand the nature and implication of organizational ways of dealing with competing demands.
Table 1
Various types of competing demands in organizations
Dilemma | An either/or situation where one alternative is preferred relative to the other. | Designers need to know how to select and be aware of potential for polarization and rigidity. Choice of one pole, for example, A, leads to failure to engage in action that supports the other pole, for example, B. | (Achtenhagen and Melin 2003; Janssens and Steyaert 1999; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Westenholz 1993) |
Trade-off | A gradual exchange between two demands where more of one means less of the other. | Designers need to be aware that the relief that comes as a result of a compromise is short-lived and it might reduce or neutralize the energy of the tension. In addition, the compromise might mute opposition although it might resurface later. | (Achtenhagen and Melin 2003; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013) |
Dialectic | A pattern that always begins with a thesis, followed by an antithesis, which is then resolved by their synthesis. | Designers need to be aware of the separation that dialectics imply as it might delay learning of the intersection and the opportunity to thrive through the tension. This also might marginalize the less powerful pole. | (Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Putnam et al. 2016; Smith and Lewis 2011; Westenholz 1993) |
Duality | The twofold nature of an object of study without separation; they are seemingly opposite but are interdependent and complementary. | This implies that the designer’s focus is on complementarity and reducing power difference. This might also imply neutralizing the opposition in the long term. | (Farjoun 2010; Janssens and Steyaert 1999; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Smith and Lewis 2011) |
Paradox | Contradictory, yet interrelated elements exist simultaneously and the tension persists over time. | This implies that designer’s aim for accommodating tensions. For the designer that means critically examining assumptions about tensions and developing a complicated range of understanding tensions and new organizational practices to accommodate them. | (Janssens and Steyaert 1999; Jarzabkowski et al. 2013; Quinn and Cameron 1988; Smith and Lewis 2011) |
In the literature on competing demands, it is typical for researchers to stress different conceptualizations chosen from those represented in Table
1 (see Putnam et al.
2016; Smith and Lewis
2011). Despite their respective merits, the distinctiveness of such conceptualizations does not explicitly show similarities and differences across the various sources, although they do indicate why sharp distinctions among varying conceptualizations matter. Moreover, given the variety of conceptualizations (for more, see Ashforth et al.
2014; Janssens and Steyaert
1999), analytical distinctions among various ways of coping with competing demands need to be closely related to distinctions made at a practical level. Consequently, current explanations lack an overarching systematic framework. Such a framework would combine features characterizing responses to competing demands that show their similarities, differences, and implications.
In the following section, we distil the core features that can be used to show similarities and differences among diverse conceptualizations of competing demands. Using these features, we discuss how various conceptualizations of the effects of these competing demands can be understood and interpreted, indicating which features are present (and absent) in each conceptualization. The intention is not to impose a single definition but to contribute to the field of research by showing how to delimit the consideration of competing demands—meaning how to define their boundaries in a manner that is useful for advancing our understanding of them and enables us to separate and compare them.
Features of competing demands in organizations
Although various conceptualizations and definitions exist, as we have discussed, the differences among them are not always clear. As shown in Table
1, existing and somewhat overlapping definitions are insufficient for understanding and researching competing demands and the resulting tensions. Hence, systematic comparison is required to enhance clarity. To make a systematic comparison, it is important to differentiate features unique to a particular conceptualization from overlapping features that co-exist with other conceptualizations. These features could then serve as distinguishing or shared traits or qualities. Using the identified features, it is possible to describe the uniqueness of any conceptualization and to make systematic comparisons among these. Doing so makes it possible to show if a particular concept is used as an overarching category or is treated as a feature of a categorical conceptualization. For example, Putnam et al. (
2016) use contradiction as a concept in itself, while others (see Achtenhagen and Melin
2003; Schad et al.
2016; Smith and Lewis
2011) use the same term as a feature characterizing a concept.
2
Based on a review of key references distinguishing competing demands and their associated effects (such as Achtenhagen and Melin
2003; Ashforth et al.
2014; Cameron and Quinn
1988; Janssens and Steyaert
1999; Putnam et al.
2016; Smith and Lewis
2011), we were able to identify seven core features: the existence of a dyad, contradiction, interrelatedness, complementarity, compatibility, simultaneity, and push-pull forces. Using these features, we advance a nuanced understanding of those features that are common and those used to define each particular categorization. What these features refer to and how they are used is further discussed below.
The existence of a dyadic choice implies that there are two competing demands, such as the pressure to explore and to exploit (March
1991). The demands are competing because they require separate attention, entail the allocation of mutually incompatible resources, and point to different guidelines for action (Chen
2017). Although most organizations will always anticipate meeting more than two demands at any time, the basic idea behind the notion of competing demands, as the literature has articulated it, is that problems often present themselves as twofold—as a potential contradiction. A potential contradiction implies that the competing demands are in opposition to one another (Smith and Lewis
2011) and hence engaging both might seem irrational or illogical. For example, to explore and to exploit entails different lines of action that might be considered contradictory. Exploration is characterized by search, experiment, and discovery while exploitation is characterized by refinement, efficiency, and execution (March
1991).
If competing demands are incompatible, it means that they cannot function together and negate each other (Chen
2008; Putnam et al.
2016), while compatibility signifies that the competing demands do not necessarily negate each other but can operate together. Interrelatedness signifies the presence of a bidirectional relationship (Clegg et al.
2002), which also implies a potential for synergy. When competing demands are interrelated, the perception of one demand is in some way, if not entirely, shaped by that of the other (Chen
2008); in other words, one demand defines the other (Putnam et al.
2016). Compatibility and interrelatedness can be exemplified by improvisation where planning and action function together. According to Clegg et al. (
2002, p. 494), improvisation necessarily engages planning and ad hoc reaction (see also Kamoche and Cunha
2001). Complementarity denotes that competing demands support and reinforce one another (Andriopoulos and Lewis
2009a,
2010), that each is necessary but not sufficient for the well-being of the organization (Ashforth and Reingen
2014). The social and commercial needs of social enterprises exemplify complementarity in that one reinforces the other (Porter and Kramer
2006; Smith et al.
2013).
Simultaneity implies that competing demands are apparent at the same time, exemplified by the co-presence of art and technology as a source of novelty in the case of Pixar (Harvey
2014). Pixar’s success depends on meeting both demands at the same time with equal vigor (Birkinshaw and Gibson
2004; Burton et al.
2015). Finally, push-pull points to the tug-of-war that pulls competing but inseparable demands in opposite directions. The push-pull can be exemplified by the need to attend to the idealist and pragmatic missions of a natural food cooperative, as explained by Ashforth and Reingen (
2014). The push-pull or the sense of being pulled in the opposite direction (Schad et al.
2016) can be continuous or temporary. If the push-pull is continuous, the more organization members move towards one pole, the more they will feel pulled towards its opposite (Smith and Lewis
2011). If the push-pull is punctuated, it implies a resolution of the tension, i.e., favoring one over the other, either temporarily or permanently. Table
2 summarizes the features.
Table 2
Features of competing demands
Existence of a dyad | There are two demands that are competing because they need separate attention or they give a different prescription for action. |
Contradiction | Competing demands are oppositional, and thus, engaging them both seems irrational. |
Compatibility | Competing demands can function together and do not necessarily negate each other. |
Interrelatedness | Competing demands have a bidirectional relationship where one interpenetrates the other. |
Complementarity | Competing demands reinforce one another. |
Simultaneity | Competing demands can function together at the same time at their full strength. |
Push-pull | Competing demands are in a tug-of-war in opposite directions, which can either be permanent or temporary. |
By juxtaposing features of competing demands, as shown in Table
3, it is possible to explore how different ways of dealing with competing demands invoke different responses. By adding an element of conceptual grounding to the analysis of competing demands, researchers have a more focused conceptual lens, delineating innovation and significance, moving beyond blurred explanations. The classification depicted in Table
3 clarifies the relations among the different conceptualizations of competing demands. Compared to Table
1—which is a more typical way of differentiating concepts related to competing demands—the conceptualization of Table
3 indicates systematically which features are present (and absent) when describing a specific competing demand. Table
3 complements the prior conceptualization and indicates how, for example, trade-offs can be understood and how they differ from other conceptualizations. The theoretical implication of constructing Table
3 is that it delineates content validity—that is to the extent to which a conceptualization represents all facets of a given construct—in research into different processes that are often conceptually amalgamated. Having outlined the features and provided an overview of the similarities and differences among different tensions, we now offer a more nuanced discussion, based on Table
3.
Table 3
A reconceptualization of competing demands
Dilemmas | √ | × | × | × | × | × | × |
Trade-offs | √ | √ | × | × | √ | × | √ |
Dialectics | √ | √ | √ | × | × | × | √/× |
Dualities | √ | × | √ | √ | √ | √ | √/× |
Paradoxes | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
In the table, the “√” sign indicates what features are present within each conceptualization, while the absence of a particular feature is indicated by the “×” sign. If the cell contains both symbols, this means the feature is present in a limited way, either temporally, spatially, or as a minimal presence.
Dilemmas
If a competing demand is conceptualized as a dilemma, these demands may be attended to separately because they are merely competing for attention. None of the other features characterize a dilemma; for example, there is no assumption that the two “horns of a dilemma” are contradictory, interrelated, complementary, and compatible. Moreover, the prescription for action is different if one is more likely to be selected at the expense of the other. As Smith (
2014) indicates, there is a clear decision, one way or the other, meaning that one alternative must be preferred. The treatment of competing demands that is most closely related to regarding them as a dilemma would be a trade-off.
Trade-offs
If a tension is conceptualized as a trade-off, it comprises two demands that are compatible but oppositional and that require separate attention. Moreover, although they can function together in a constant tug-of-war, they are not present at their full strength. Since the demands are neither interrelated nor complementary, it means that more of one demand means less of the other (for example, work/life balance). In other words, although they are compatible and hence can be active at the same time, the two demands are not present at their full strength. They represent, as Eisenhardt (
2000) put it, a bland, halfway.
Dialectics
When tensions are conceptualized as dialectics, the two demands are contradictory and interrelated. In a dialectic, the two demands are antagonistic: one emerges due to the dominance of the other; hence, they are not compatible. As Hargrave and Van de Ven (
2017) pointed out, actors try either to maintain or change existing conditions, seeking to defeat their dialectical other (implying resolution) rather than accepting coexistence. Because there is a resolution involved, push-pull is not present (Li
2016). As Schad et al. (
2016) put it, the synthesis renders push-pull obsolete.
3 In dialectics, considering the current conceptualization, one demand follows the other (i.e., thesis is followed by anti-thesis) and the two do not exist simultaneously but rather across time and space (they are separated).
Dualities
Tensions conceptualized as dualities consist of two demands that are interrelated, complementary, compatible, and simultaneous. Because the two are not necessarily contradictory, the tug-of-war between them (for example, protection of self-interest while nurturing the collective good) is not as pronounced as in a trade-off. Accordingly, dualities imply a “twofold character of an object of study without separation” (Farjoun
2010). They are neither necessarily antagonistic (Putnam et al.
2016) nor separate (Farjoun
2010), and because they are inseparable, one cannot be understood in the absence of the other, so there is less focus on the contradiction (Schad et al.
2016, p. 12).
Paradoxes
Finally, paradoxes are contradictory dyads, with complementary and interrelated poles. They exist simultaneously and reinforce one another, such that the push-pull of the opposites persists over time. The push-pull or presence of a tug-of-war has different implications in paradoxes compared to trade-offs, for example. In a paradox, the push-pull is embraced and used as a source of energy while in a trade-off the push-pull is minimized and settled by reaching a compromise middle-ground solution. Paradox checks off all features and is defined in terms of “contradictory, yet interrelated organizational elements that exist simultaneously,” with the tensions between them expressing persistence or stubbornness (Cunha and Clegg
2018; Smith and Lewis
2011, p. 382). Tensions are used as a source of energy.
The framework provided by this innovative conceptualization renders the similarities and differences of various ways of classifying competing demands clearer by revealing their underlying assumptions. Moreover, it clarifies which features are present and which are absent when using a specific conceptual lens to frame and subsequently approach competing demands. Doing so also shows whether the situation is to be considered as a problem to be solved (for example, a dilemma) or as an opportunity to be creative (for example, a paradox) (see Andriopoulos and Lewis
2010).
Distinctions for conceptual clarity
Competing demands can be understood on the basis of how their inherent features are constituted in practice. Commonly, two forms of constitution are in play: one negative, the other positive. First, competing demands (and their associated tensions) may be treated as a source of anxiety and discomfort, and organization designers and members will thus attempt to avoid, suppress, or resolve them (Smith and Berg
1987). Second, they may be approached as a source of energy thus calling for creativity (Beech et al.
2004; Smith and Lewis
2011). These different approaches are reflected in the ways that researchers differentiate between competing demands at the theoretical and empirical levels. These distinctions are of great importance because of the subtleties involved, but they are not always apparent in specific expressions of scholarship (Gaim
2017b). For example, researchers such as Smith (
2014) use paradox to conceptualize tensions but state that being consistently inconsistent—through differentiation and integration—is a decision pattern that informs leaders’ practice. Similarly, in their study of tensions in cooperatives, Ashforth and Reingen (
2014) report that organization members engage in a zigzag pattern over time to deal with the tension; the authors conceptualize this as duality. Although on a conceptual level these studies claim to look at paradox and duality, respectively, they are in fact looking at various ways of dealing with competing demands. In this formulation of being “consistently inconsistent,” as soon as the competing demands are separated, paradox ceases to exist because paradox (see Table
3) involves unceasing push-pull. Similarly, if organizational members engage in a zigzag pattern favoring idealistic over pragmatist demands at one point and the opposite on a later occasion, then they are not dealing with dualities but with dilemmas (see Table
3).
Although our central focus has been on the importance of conceptual clarity to make a significant research contribution, the paper also has practical implications. In research terms, insofar as the constitutive features identified help researchers in their studies of competing demands, practically an awareness of similarities and differences can also aid organizational design that makes sense of competing demands (see the action research done by Luscher and Lewis
2008). Similarly, it is possible to show whether the responses suggested conceptually (e.g., based on avoidance, choice, compromise, or acceptance and engaging (Jarzabkowski et al.
2013; Lewis
2000; Smith and Berg
1987) were targeted to different categories of competing demands.
Apart from responses based on avoidance (which are conceptually irrelevant), choice-related responses align with the category of a dilemma (see Table
3). Compromise-related responses imply recognizing and attempting to accommodate competing demands but not at their full strength; this would entail finding a middle ground in the form of settlement or balance (Jay
2013; Smith and Lewis
2011). In these cases, there is a tendency to reconcile and sacrifice some of one’s own needs: one party’s gain is another party’s loss. Following Table
3, this compromise aligns with the notion of a trade-off. Responses based on accepting and engaging tensions inherent in competing demands imply understanding contradiction, tension, and ambiguity as natural conditions of work (Lewis
2000). Doing so involves conceptualizing paradox in theory and accepting paradox in practice as a stimulus to the imagination of creative responses (Carlson et al.
2017).