Paradoxa of Organizations
Part IV of our series on organizations, organizational cultures and change management
Table of Contents
1. Conceptual basics regarding contradictions and paradoxa
↳ 1a. Simple contradictions
↳ 1b. Paradoxa as self-referential contradictions
↳ 1c. Invisibilization as a solution to paralysis by paradoxon
2. Organizations are rife with paradoxa
↳ 2a. The fundamental paradoxon of decision
↳ 2b. The paradoxon of hierarchy maintenance and reduction
↳ 2c. The paradoxon of authentic impression management
3. How to handle organizational paradoxa?
4. Three reading tips
1. Conceptual basics regarding contradictions and paradoxa
All organizations tend to describe themselves as more or less rational social entities that can be planned and controlled. Therefore, the use of the metaphor of (trivial) machines seems to make sense.
On the other hand, as soon as we work in or with such organizations, it quickly becomes clear that behind the rational, glossy façade lurk many irrationalities in the form of contradictions and paradoxa.
1a. Simple contradictions
Contradictions have a long and venerable tradition in the history of (Western) philosophy. And they are often traced back to the Aristotelian principle of tertium non-datur, i.e., something is the case or something is not the case. In short: either A or not-A. There is therefore a contradiction if the relationship is both A and not-A (at the same time).
However, this presupposes a special binary-logical observer, so that different observers at different times and with respect to different semantic properties don’t play a role here.
For such a binary-logical ego-hic-nunc, i.e. I — here — now observer a cell, for instance, is either dead or alive, but it’s not both dead and alive at the same time. Otherwise, it would be a kind of Zombie cell.
1b. Paradoxa as self-referential contradictions
With reference to the previous section, (many) paradoxa can be seen as a further contradictory variant, namely: self-referential contradictions.
The classic example of this type of contradiction is the liar paradox à la this statement is false, in which the truth values begin to oscillate (true -> false -> true -> false, etc.). That is:
- If the statement is true, then it must be false.
- However, if the statement is false, then it must be true, because it says that it’s false.
- If the statement is true…
Classical solutions were either to forbid such paradoxical statements (as nonsensical) or, for example, to establish hierarchies in which a distinction was made between object and meta levels.
In Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory, on the other hand, paradoxa as the simultaneity of tautology (A=A) and contradiction (A = not-A) form the basis of his entire approach.
This means that a (social) system, e.g. organizations, operates with the distinction between system (organization) and environment (= non-organization, which can refer to other organizations and non-organizations) within itself.
This results in a kind of backflip, commonly called re-entry, on the system side of this distinction. In short, system (system / environment), so that system = system (the tautology) and, at the same time, system = non-system = environment (the contradiction).
1c. Invisibilization as a solution to paralysis by paradoxon
The basic paradoxon of system (system/environment), referring to both consciousness and various operating social systems (interactions, families, organizations, etc.), isn’t prohibited in everyday life!
Instead, it’s made invisible by the one-sided reference
- either to the system / organization itself = auto-reference
- or (something in) its environment = other-reference.
Why is this necessary?
The reason is paralysis by paradoxon. That is, without such invisibilization, the paradoxon threatens to become paralyzing for any operating conscious or social system in general and organizations in particular!
2. Organizations are rife with paradoxa
Luhmann conceives of organizations as socio-emergent systems that are operationally distinct from their complex environments through the processing of decision-based communications.
These decision-based communications relate in particular to
- Who and who isn’t a member of the organizations.
- What purposes the organizations or its units should pursue.
- What the hierarchy and thus the structure of the distribution of authority and the making of decisions should look like.
Of course, many other communications take place in organizations, such as
- Informal conversations (including gossip)
- Contacts to clients
- Exchange with members of other social networks
etc.
However, without decision-based communications that can recursively refer back to each other, there is no organization! And this is how this type of socioemergent system differs from other social types, such as families or interactions between people.
And why are contradictions and paradoxa (in the sense mentioned in section 1b.) unavoidable in organizations?
The answer is that to the extent that organizations have to operate in a complex environment, contradictions and paradoxa arise in dealing with this (hyper)complexity.
Or to put it another way, there are always conflicting values, demands, functions, etc. that can’t all be harmonized once and for all in organizations.
In this section, we briefly describe three of these paradoxa according to Niklas Luhmann’s sociological systems theory.
2a. The fundamental paradoxon of decision
Decision-making involves a fundamental paradoxon, because every decision is a selection among a set of alternatives that must be negated.
Or to put it differently, a decision requires other possibilities, but any decision process has also to reject these alternative options.
A catchy shorthand for a decision could then perhaps be: selection by rejection (of options that are always necessary).
This paradox inevitably underlies each and every decision, and it can only be observed and managed, not eliminated. If it were, there would be no decision at all!
2b. The paradoxon of hierarchy maintenance and reduction
The first thing we’re usually confronted with as new members of organizations is the principle of hierarchy, which has been established for thousands of years. This principle distributes positions in an organization according to a top to bottom ranking and links them to power.
So when organizational hierarchies work, they have considerable advantages such as:
- Time savings.
- Clear decision-making structures.
- Containment of micro-politics.
- Effective management of contradictions and conflicts.
etc.
On the other hand, dissatisfaction with traditional organizational hierarchies has been growing since the second half of the 20th century.
Some common points of criticism in this context are:
- Lack of / distortion of knowledge
Information can be distorted or lost as it moves up through the hierarchy, leading to a lack of accurate business / organizational knowledge by those at the top. - Risk of ignoring subject matter experts or people with direct customer contact / good market expertise
Many organizations assume that superiors have a better understanding of the business, which isn’t always a case. As a result, experts in a particular field or people with direct customer contact / good market expertise may be ignored or not given enough weight in decision-making processes. - Overestimation of the power and control possibilities on the part of superiors
Lower-level employees may have their own sources of power and influence (i.e., personal connections, expertise and informal communication channels within the organization and with external networks) that are not controlled or controllable by the organizational hierarchy.
These sources of power and influence not only serve to build counter-power, but can also be used to one’s own (career) advantage. - Agility disadvantages
Traditional hierarchies are often too slow to adapt quickly and flexibly enough to their dynamic and complex environments. - Hierarchies as brakes on motivation, creativity and innovation
Traditional hierarchies, in particular if they‘re accompanied by strong controls of the lower levels, not only impair the motivation of their employees, but also tend to inhibit organizational creativity / innovation.
We can perhaps establish the following relationship here:
The more traditional the organizational hierarchy is, the more it tends to be demotivating, uncreative and non-innovative.
So, is it any surprise that
- Change management initiatives have been an ongoing topic for decades?
- The call for more business agility, i.e. the scaling of agile beyond the team level, has been getting louder and louder for years?
- Non-traditional hierarchy / leadership models such as
- Sociocracy
- Holacracy
- Servant leadership
- Lateral leadership
etc. are increasingly en vogue?
Thus, the ideal in this context is:
- We want (the advantages of) hierarchy without (the disadvantages of) hierarchy.
- Or if you prefer a paradoxical and shorter re-entry formula:
top (top / bottom).
However, the alternatives to traditional hierarchies also have considerable disadvantages. For example:
- A consistent de-hierarchization tends to dissolve the organization towards a loosely coupled network.
- An increase in bureaucratization, see Stefan Kühl (2023), Shadow Organizations: Agile Management and Unwanted Bureaucratization, Organizational Dialogue Press.
- An increase in micropolitics and a decrease in the ability to manage conflicts.
etc.
2c. The paradoxon of authentic impression management
Since Erving Goffman’s book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, published in 1959, the attempt to influence how others perceive us has been referred to as impression management in sociology.
However, this isn’t only practiced by people in face-to-face interactions or in Internet communication (Instagram & Co), but also by social systems such as families and organizations.
This means that organizations use external physical and media appearances (façades), i.e. buildings, websites, clothing, forms of language, brochures, etc., in order to
- Present a consistent and positive self-image to external parties.
- Reconcile the conflicting demands of different stakeholders with their respective values/ideologies, expectations, etc.
Yet such a façade isn’t sufficient to manage an organization’s image. So, it must be complemented by other elements:
- Comprehensive value statements.
- Various representative speakers of the organization.
- Different communication strategies.
- Embellishments of current practices in the organization.
etc.
In short, impression management practices (including hypocrisy) are an integral part of every organization, with the façade being usually more or less different from the formal structure and actual processes in the organization.
An example:
Companies sometimes pretend to be a (substitute for a) family. However, members usually quickly realize that a company is neither a good place for intimacy nor can it do without the dismissal of personnel.
The whole situation is exacerbated when impression management is coupled with the postulate of authenticity:
- Insofar as our own thoughts can’t be directly short-circuited with the thoughts of others, not only does communication pop up as a socioemergent mechanism of behavioral coordination, but there is also an irreducible gap between what we mean (think) and what we actually say (communicate).
In brief, we don’t know whether what we mentally mean is congruent with what we say in communication, or more precisely: what is understood / interpreted in uncontrollable communication processes. - If this is now demanded in communication as be authentic, then suspicion is aroused when authenticity is constantly emphasized.
In other words, authenticity in communication works well when it’s staged in such a way that it doesn’t arouse suspicion of inauthenticity!
The paradoxical re-entry formula can then be summarized as follows: inauthentic (authentic / inauthentic) = staged (non-staged / staged)
This paradoxon of authenticity (as staged authenticity which has to be perceived as non-staged) means for organizations that considerable staging efforts must sometimes be made in order to create an authentic impression that is convincing in terms of staged non-stagedness.
3. How to handle organizational paradoxa?
The final question is: how can we deal with such paradoxa in organizations?
- First of all, it should be noted that such paradoxa are often invisible, in particular from a common sense perspective. They are, so to speak, a non-topic.
If they do arise, then a hasty solution, as Alexander the Great did with the Gordian knot, is rather pointless.
Progress is more likely to be made by developing a specific sensitivity to the paradoxical dilemmas and tensions that afflict organizations and must be endured.
This includes switching to an experimental, trial-and-error mode in which, for instance, attempts are made to agilize the organizational hierarchy in a way that doesn’t completely destroy it. - Second, we can train ourselves through the reading of specialized literature (see section 4), further training, etc. to recognize gaps in rationality, latencies and patterns in decision-making in our own organization.
The aim is then to uncover the potential in our organization that already exists but has not yet been exploited in previous change initiatives, i.e. agile, digital, business process-oriented, etc. transformation projects. - Third, it’s also a good idea to strengthen the organizational observation skills while increasing the internal complexity (in the sense of complexify yourself!).
In other words, the focus of managers should not only be on doing, but also on increasing the potential for observation and reflection. - Last, but not least, it may make sense for organizations to bring in systemically trained organizational consultants who are familiar with the observation methods mentioned above and are able to uncover an organization’s untapped potential.
4. Three reading tips
- The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
- The Hidden Opportunity in Paradoxes (mit.edu)
- In German: https://zoe-online.org/reflexion/wozu-paradoxien/
Thanks for reading and, hopefully, see you in the next post Beyond Organizational Common Sense — Part I: On Containers, Turtles, and Organization Theory!
Author for WAITS Software und Prozessberatungsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne, Germany: Peter Bormann — January 2024.
