A model for coping with the paradoxes of management

A model for coping with the paradoxes of management

coping with the paradoxes of management

Coping with the paradoxes of management

A significant part of management actually entails how to manage the paradoxes and dilemmas presented in daily organisational life. Coping with the paradoxes of management is a core skill when trying to deal with competing and often diametrically opposed priorities that abound in organisational life. A new model just published shows how to balance priorities and deal with the paradoxes.


Research over the years has shown that given the choice between the priorities of the organisation and those of the employees, management can frequently put the needs of the organisation above those who make it operate. An extreme example is where the manufacturers of Apple’s hand-held devices put suicide netting around the factory’s roof to prevent those making the devices from killing themselves – rather than actually addressing the core issues that led to this situation with their employees. The study found that managers in most organisations find themselves in what is known as the performance – organising paradox.




The performance – organising paradox


The performance – organising paradox found by the researchers is a common situation where the manager has to try to balance the needs of the organisation with those of the employees. This often places a manager in a paradox of either taking some action or not.


99% of everything you are trying to do...

...has already been done by someone else, somewhere - and meticulously researched.

Get the latest research briefings, infographics and more from The Oxford Review - Free.

We won't send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by ConvertKit


The researchers found that coping with the paradoxes of management is difficult for many managers who tend to deal with such paradoxes in one of three ways:

  1. Active attendance – this where the manager recognises that paradox and actively tries to balance the competing demands
  2. Defensive attendance where the manager make a decision to only attend to one pole of the paradox, say ignore the employees welfare or needs. This require a defence of that decision.
  3. No attendance / avoidance where the manager ignores or denies the paradox and focusses on some other detail, so as not to have to face the issue presented by the paradox.


Paradox 1


The researchers found that managers who reach for more defensive strategies when faced with a paradox usually do so to gain short term relief from the problem. However, these responses usually have longer-term negative consequences such as reduced commitment and performance among employees.


Structuration effects


Structuration is a concept raised in 1984 where it was found that people and their organisations “constantly produce and reproduce social structures that become institutionalized over time.”

In effect what happens is that the initial choices of the managers in these situations tend to become institutionalised and become the rules or norms for management behaviour in such situations. So if managers ignore the paradox or decide to use a defensive attendance strategy for example to deal with paradoxes it is very likely that such behaviour will become structurated, or part of the organisational practice.


Coping with paradoxes

Coping with paradoxes

A model for coping with the paradoxes of management


The researchers’ model suggests that, in the typical management decision making process, there are four points of potential conflict and, therefore, potential paradox.  These points are:


  1. Where decisions are turned into strategic goals at the senior management level, as they need to consider the needs and abilities of the employees and manage the conflicts at that level.
  2. At the point where the strategic goals are transferred to the employees and are contested if they clash with the employees’ needs, understanding or abilities.
  3. During implementation, when employees and the managers will be having to adapt to the needs of the organisation, through the strategic goals set by senior management.
  4. When the activities of the workers feedback into the success or otherwise of the strategic goals.


Each of these four points can and will embed the thinking and practices around how these paradoxes are dealt with in an organisation if action is not taken to ensure it doesn’t.

The point the researchers make is that the organisation needs to think through how managers make decisions at these moments of paradox so that they can meet and properly manage the competing demands at these key crunch points.

As the study points out, defensive attendance at these points can have far-reaching negative consequences for the managers, employees and the organisation.


Reference – available to members


How organisations deal with dilemmas and emergencies – Press & Balance

Be impressively well informed

Get the very latest research intelligence briefings, video research briefings, infographics and more sent direct to you as they are published

Be the most impressively well-informed and up-to-date person around...

Powered by ConvertKit
Like what you see? Help us spread the word

David Wilkinson

David Wilkinson is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford Review. He is also acknowledged to be one of the world's leading experts in dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty and developing emotional resilience. David teaches and conducts research at a number of universities including the University of Oxford, Medical Sciences Division, Cardiff University, Oxford Brookes University School of Business and many more. He has worked with many organisations as a consultant and executive coach including Schroders, where he coaches and runs their leadership and management programmes, Royal Mail, Aimia, Hyundai, The RAF, The Pentagon, the governments of the UK, US, Saudi, Oman and the Yemen for example. In 2010 he developed the world's first and only model and programme for developing emotional resilience across entire populations and organisations which has since become known as the Fear to Flow model which is the subject of his next book. In 2012 he drove a 1973 VW across six countries in Southern Africa whilst collecting money for charity and conducting on the ground charity work including developing emotional literature in children and orphans in Africa and a number of other activities. He is the author of The Ambiguity Advanatage: What great leaders are great at, published by Palgrave Macmillian. See more: About: About David Wikipedia: David's Wikipedia Page