Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:06:13.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duality theory and the management of the change–stability paradox

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Fiona Sutherland  and
Aaron CT Smith
Fiona Sutherland
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
Aaron CT Smith
Affiliation:
RMIT Business, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

paradox managementduality theoryduality characteristicscontinuity and change
Type
Stability & Change
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 534 - 547
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abernathy, W. J. (1978). The productivity dilemma: Roadblock to innovation in the automobile industry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26, 645–663.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.Google Scholar
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 554–568). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.Google Scholar
Collins, D. (2003). Guest editor's introduction: Re-imagining change. Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 2(4), iv–xi.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166.10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<147::AID-SMJ11>3.0.CO;2-Q3.0.CO;2-Q>Google Scholar
Eisenhardt, K. E. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703–705.Google Scholar
Evans, P. (1992). Balancing continuity and change: The constructive tension in individual and organizational development. In Bennis, W., Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (Eds.), Executive and organizational continuity: Managing the paradoxes of stability and change (pp. 253–283). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Evans, P. (1999). HRM on the edge: A duality perspective. Organization, 6(2), 325–338.Google Scholar
Evans, P., & Doz, Y. (1992). Dualities: A paradigm for human resource and organizational development in complex multinationals. In Pucik, V., Tichy, N., & Barnett, C. (Eds.), Globalizing management: Creating and leading the competitive organization (pp. 85–106). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J. L. (2002). The global challenge: Frameworks for international human resource management. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
Ford, J., & Backoff, R. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 81–121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Fuchs, C. (2003). Structuration theory and self-organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(2), 133–167.Google Scholar
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, M. A., Barr, P. S., & Dacin, M. T. (2000). Pluralism and the problem of variety. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 726–734.Google Scholar
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2008). The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), 265–280.Google Scholar
Grint, K. (1998). Determining the indeterminacies of change. Management Decision, 36(8), 503–508.Google Scholar
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 929–984.Google Scholar
Haynes, B., & Price, I. (2004). Quantifying the complex adaptive workplace. Facilities, 22(1/2), 8–18.Google Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.Google Scholar
Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P., & Starbuck, W. H. (1976). Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self designing organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 41–65.Google Scholar
Jackson, W. (1999). Dualism, duality and the complexity of economic institutions. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(4), 545–558.Google Scholar
Johnston, S., & Selsky, J. W. (2005). Duality and paradox: Trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice. Organization Studies, 27(2), 183–205.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kilduff, M., & Dougherty, D. (2000). Change and development in a pluralistic world: The view from the classics. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 777–782.Google Scholar
Lado, A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. S. (1997). Competition, cooperation and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110–141.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.Google Scholar
MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2001). Conditioned emergence: Researching change and changing research. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(10), 1343–1357.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370–386.Google Scholar
Pascale, R. (1990). Managing on the edge: How successful companies use conflict to stay ahead. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M., & Fenton, E. M. (2000). Complexities and dualities in innovative forms of organizing. In Pettigrew, A. M. & Fenton, E. M. (Eds.), The innovative organization (pp. 279–300). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, A. M., Whittington, R. L., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., Ruigrok, W., & Numagami, T. (2003). Innovative forms of organizing. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1998). New forms of organizing. In Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J. B. (Eds.), Readings in the strategy process (2nd ed.; pp. 162–174). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.10.1287/mnsc.29.3.363Google Scholar
Sanchez-Runde, C. J., & Pettigrew, A. M. (2003). Managing dualities. In Pettigrew, A. M., Whittington, R. L., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J.Ruigrok, W., & Numagami, T. (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 243–250). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schumacher, E. F. (1977). A guide for the perplexed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In Poole, M. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. (1996). Emerging strategies for a chaotic environment. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 182–189.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1988). Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 19–61). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377–1404.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.Google Scholar