Leadership paradoxes

What tensions do leaders face?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 14, 2024

Introduction

The hallmark of a first-class leader is the ability to demonstrate contrary or opposing behaviors while maintaining a certain level of integrity, credibility and direction. Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn (1995)

Was that what was meant by “paradox”?

Figure 1: Dilbert comic strip on leadership

Discussion

What was your most surprising finding in reading Lavine (2014)?

Paradoxes in leadership

Leadership requires the capacity to recognize and react to paradox, contradiction, and complexity. Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn (1995)

Traditional management theories have often presented organizational phenomena in terms of discrete, opposing categories (e.g., Theory X and Theory Y, transactional and transformational leadership). In contrast, more recent theorizing has placed greater emphasis on paradox¹, contradiction, and complexity, suggesting that many phenomexna may in fact fit multiple opposing categories simultaneously.

While not denying the underlying discrete categories, this more complex perspective implies that effective leaders are those who have the cognitive and behavioral capacity to recognize and react to paradox, contradiction, and complexity in their environments (Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn 1995). Particularly when considering that paradox is fundamental to contemporary work contexts characterized by globalization, technological change, and increased competition (Lavine 2014).

Discussion

What is ambidexterity, what is behavioral complexity?

Ambidexterity

Ambidexterity refers to “an organization’s capacity to address two organizationally incompatible objectives equally well.” Birkinshaw and Gupta (2013, 291)

The ability of senior leadership teams to embrace tension between old states and activities and new ones is a key predictor of firm success (Tushman, Smith, and Binns 2011).

Leaders must “embrace inconsistency by maintaining multiple and often conflicting strategic demands.” O’Reilly III and Tushman (2011, 76)

Behavioral complexity

It takes complexity to defeat complexity. Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007, 301)

Increasing social and organizational complexity requires cognitive complexity and behavioral complexity — “we must conceive and perform” (Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn 1995, 524).

Effective leaders are those who have the cognitive as well as the behavioral capacity to recognize and react to paradox, contradiction, and complexity in their environments (Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn 1995; Lawrence, Lenk, and Quinn 2009; Spreitzer and Quinn 1996).

Effective leadership is dependent on behavioral complexity, “the ability to perform the multiple roles and behaviors that circumscribe the requisite variety implied by an organizational or environmental context.” Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn (1995, 526)

Discussion

What is the competing values framework?

The competing values framework

The competing values framework highlights the trade-offs, tensions, contradictions, and paradoxes inherent in organizations and their leaders. Lavine (2014, 194)

Complexities (competing values)

The competing values in a framework based on Quinn (1988)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: The competing values in a framework based on Quinn (1988)

The creator of the competing values framework (CVF), Quinn (1988) argues that top managers and leaders are better able to recognize and deal with contradictions and paradoxes that often manifest themselves in the form of conflict, unconstructive conversations and misalignment of leadership and management capacity with an organisation’s strategic challenges. He identified multiple competing demands and views between members within the organization and across various levels of the organization. He showed that these reflect different values of individuals and often different cultures which had become embedded in parts of and across organizations. Quinn (1988) set out his attempt to develop an integrating framework that could capture these in a meaningful way, with different mixes of paradoxes and contradictions at each point in time, and to show how individuals and organisations could better appreciate the circumstances and move forward.

Quinn (1988) distilled the competing values in a framework with two dimensions and resulting four quadrants. The dimensions express the tensions or competing values that characterize all organisations. One axis represents the continuum between flexibility or adaptability and stability or control. The other axis describes the continuum between efficient internal processes, such as human resource practices or internal control systems, and external positioning vis-à-vis stakeholders such as competitors, customers and clients. Each continuum highlights performance criteria that are opposite to the other end of the continuum, such as internal versus external alignment (horizontal axis) or flexibility versus stability (vertical axis).

The main characteristics of the clan culture, so called because it resembles a family-like orientation, include empowerment, team building and employee participation; the main characteristics of the adhocracy culture include adaptability, creativity and risk-taking; this type of culture is often found in innovative industries. The main characteristics of hierarchy culture include standardization, predictability and multiple levels of management; the authors suggest that this type of culture is usually found in government agencies. Finally, Cameron and Quinn (2006) suggest that market culture, with its characteristic outward orientation and competitive attitude, is often found in organisations operating in unstable and crowded operating environments.

The four orientations are intuitively appealing, perhaps confirming their origin in psychological archetypes; most people can probably find the culture of their current organisation somewhere in this taxonomy. However, as the academic labels for thein each quadrant are often misunderstood, it has proven useful to substitute more accessible and commonly used verbs to describe the dominant activities that relate to each culture—collaborate, create, compete, and control (Lavine 2014).

Paradoxes in digital leadership

How does the digital age influence these paradoxes?

Please discuss how digital technologies facilitate the paradoxes outlined and/or enable leaders to mitigate these and help to deal with complexity. Group work, 10 minutes

Leadership traits

Clan (collaborate)	Adhocracy (create)
Mentors, facilitators or team builders — they hold everything together when times are tough, and encourage the pursuit of shared objectives. They’ll help members of their team develop the skills needed to work together more effectively.	Visionaries — they embrace change and new thinking, and are often not overly worried about risk. They’re not just imaginative, but eager to turn their ideas into reality.
Hierarchy (control)	Market (compete)
Managers — they’re focused on organizing, problem solving, and ensuring things are done correctly. They’re scrupulous about paying attention to detail, staying informed, and being rigorous in their analyzes.	Deal makers — they are results-driven, and usually focused on the short-term. They like to take charge, and act fast to close deals with customers.

Table 1: CVF — management skills and leadership behaviors (Lavine 2014)

Implications

Leadership qualities seem to be best demonstrated by more movement throughout the framework, suggesting complex adaptation to changing circumstances (Denison, Hooijberg, and Quinn 1995).

Complex situations require complex responses. Sometimes organizations benefit from stability, and sometimes they benefit from change. Often organizations need both stability and change at the same time. In contrast to earlier approaches, the development of the competing values framework did not assume that stability and change were mutually exclusive, an either/or decision. Quinn et al. (2020, 12)

The CVF provides a description of roles and behaviors to encourage self-reflection and to provide a preliminary sense of behaviors and accompanying roles that can be learned. Working to overcome areas of relative weakness so that they can be transformed into average or adequate performance can help leaders see more opportunities for action when core areas of strength are not delivering the desired results.

Leading innovation

Collective genius

Leading innovation takes a distinctive kind of leadership, one that unleashes and harnesses the “collective genius” of the people in the organization. Linda A. Hill

Innovation

An innovation can be defined as an idea, practice, or material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit of adoption and offers worthwhile benefits (Dewar and Dutton 1986).

Innovations can be differentiated according to the degree of deviation from existing technologies and practices: incremental innovation and radical innovation (McDermott and O’connor 2002).

• Radical innovations are fundamental changes that represent revolutionary changes in technology (Dewar and Dutton 1986). They represent clear departures from existing practices and require new skills, levels of market understanding, leaps in new processing abilities, and systems throughout the organization (McDermott and O’connor 2002).
• Incremental innovations are minor improvements or simple adjustments in current technology (Munson and Pelz 1979

The main difference that characterizes the two dipoles is the degree of new knowledge contained in the innovation (Dewar and Dutton 1986), which implies technological uncertainty, technical inexperience, business inexperience, and technology cost.

Nature of innovation

Innovation is not about some genius having an aha moment.

Innovation is a team sport — combining individual’s member’s separate slices of genius into a single work of collective genius. Innovation requires a place where people are willing and able to do the hard work that innovative problem solving requires.

Significance

Competitiveness depends to a large extent on the ability to innovate. So the ongoing challenge is to build an organisation that is able to innovate all the time.

The rhetoric of innovation is often about fun and creativity, but the reality is that innovation can be very taxing and uncomfortable, both emotionally and intellectually. Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b, p. 5)

This requires leadership—a different kind of leadership?

Leadership

The role of a leader of innovation is not to set a vision and motivate others to follow it. It’s to create a community that is willing and able to generate new ideas. Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b, 4)

Genius collective

Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b) has done in-depth research on many exceptional innovation leaders in different organisations and at different levels (e.g. Pixar, VW, Pentagram, Google, Pfizer, IBM). They asked what role the leader plays in creating a more innovative organisation. They concluded that directive leadership can work well when the solution to a problem is known and clear. But when the problem requires a truly original answer, no one can decide in advance what that answer should be. Therefore, leading innovation cannot be about creating a vision, persuading people and then somehow inspiring them to implement it.

So the question is not How do I make innovation happen? but rather, How do I set the stage for it to happen?

Paradoxes of innovation

The paradox at the heart of innovation is the need to unleash the talents of individuals and to harness those talents in the form of collective innovation (Linda A. Hill et al. 2014a).

Paradoxes of innovation according to Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b)

 

 

 

 

Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b) identified six innovation paradoxes. The challenge for leaders is to help the organization continually re-calibrate between:

• affirming the individual … and the group
• supporting … and confronting (i.e., collaborative disagreement)
• fostering experimentation and learning … and performance
• promoting improvisation … and and structure
• showing patience … and and urgency
• encouraging bottom-up initiative … and and intervening top-down

Leaders who stay on the right side of this paradox will never be able to unleash the full genius of their staff; they will have few or no ideas to use. Those who stay on the left side will have many ideas and possibilities to work with, but they will not be able to turn them into new and useful solutions; instead, conflict and chaos will reign. The correct position at any given time will depend on the circumstances. However, the goal will always be to take the position that enables the collaboration, experimentation and integration that are necessary for innovation.

Figure 3: Paradoxes of innovation according to Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b)

Hard work of innovation

The role of an innovation leader is to create a community that is willing and able to innovate over time (Linda A. Hill et al. 2014b).

Willingness to innovate

 

 

 

 

Ability to innovate

 

 

 

Figure 4: WIllingness to innovate

Figure 5: Ability to innovate

To build willingness, leaders must must nurture a sense of community, which rests on three elements—a sense of purpose, values, and rules of engagement (Linda A. Hill et al. 2014b).

Purpose

Purpose is not what a group does but who is in it or why it exists. It is about a collective identity.

Shared values

To form a community, members have to agree on what is important. By shaping the group’s priorities and choices, values influence individual and collective thought and action (e.g., bold ambition, collaboration, responsibility, learning)

Rules of engagement

Those keep members focused on what is imperative, discourage unproductive behaviors, and encourage activities that foster innovation (e.g., respect, trust, influence, see the whole, question everything, be data driven.

The ability to innovate, is dependent on the leader creating creative abrasion, creative resulution, and creative agility (Linda A. Hill et al. 2014b).

Creative abrasion

The ability to develop a marketplace where rich diverse ideas compete through discourse and debate.

Creative agility

The ability to develop and test different options, learn from outcomes and try again and again till the optimal option is evolved.

Creative resolution

The ability to to make decisions that combine disparate and sometimes even opposing ideas.

Creative abrasion

Art challenges technology. Technology challenges art.

Part of the magic of Pixar is that these two disciplines bump up against each other and create something better than either could create by itself. Greg Brandeau, Pixar Animation Studios

Paradoxes

• Individual vs. group identity
• Support vs. confrontation

Ingredients

• Diversity (i.e., people who think differently)
• Cognitive conflict over ideas and appraches (i.e., aimed at learning and improving not winning/losing/dominating) — doing experiments

Leader’s role

• Espouse, encourage, expect and practice communal norms that value and even amplified diversity.
• Push people together and create situation in which diverse thinkers where put in close proximity
• Create organizational bridges

Creative agility

Pursue. Reject. Adjust.

We used to launch products in an “all or nothing” mode to all of our users. Now we had the capability to test multiple different live versions of new products on 1 percent samples of our users. This yielded huge data sets and brought with it a change in mind-set for approaching innovation. We began to avoid projects that only allowed for “zero or one” decisions, instead choosing projects that could be rolled out and evaluated in small slices. Philipp Justus, eBay Germany

Creative agility is about discovery based learning. It involves quickly pursuing multiple experiments, learning from the outcomes, and then adjusting plans. Linda A. Hill et al. (2014b, p. 9)

Paradoxes

• Learning and development vs. performance
• Improvisation vs. structure

Ingredients

• Nimble mind

Leader’s role

• Pursue new ideas vigorously, proactively again and again
• Reflect to harvest knowledge (consciously, collaboratively and openly)
• Adjust and identify next steps in seeking a solution

Creative agility requires a community. Common purpose and shared values provide a framework for creating and assessing experiments.

Creative resolution

From either or
to both-and thinking

We hired innovators and if I were to forbid a passionate team to do something, it really would have missused their talents. I wanted people with a vision, and the ambition to build the next great thing. We needed to let teams go far enough so they could in fact discover this great new thing. Or, in another scenario, they had to recognize it was not quite right, then decide to work on something else, in the best-case scenario integrating their knowledge to another solution. Bill Coughranm, Google

Paradoxes

• Patience vs. urgency
• Bottom-up vs. top-down initatives

Ingredients

• “Either-or” to “Both-and” thinking

Leader’s role

• Guide their organizations to keep multiple options open
• Create the space for integration by keeping things simple, flexible and open
• Lead differently by aggregating view points not directing decisions

Innovation leaders

The leaders Linda A. Hill et al. (2014a) studied had some things in common — they call it the right stuff

They are found to be

• idealist, yet pragmatists;
• integrative thinkers, yet action oriented;
• generous, yet demanding²; and
• human, yet highly resilient³

Self-check

Are you an innovation leader? Start by asking yourself these questions about your organization (Linda A. Hill et al. 2014b, 10):

• Do members of my organization feel part of a community?
• Does my organization have a shared purpose—one that binds us together and compels us all to do the hard work of innovation?
• Does it live by rules of engagement supportive of a set of core values: bold ambition, responsibility to the community, collaboration, and learning?
• Do we have the ability to generate ideas through candid discourse and debate?
• Do we have the ability to test ideas through quick pursuit, reflection, and adaptation?
• Do we have the ability to make integrative decisions, rather than compromising or letting some groups dominate?

Ask yourself some questions about your own leadership mind-set and practices: - Do I think my primary job as a leader is to create a context in which my team can innovate? - Am I comfortable serving as the “stage setter” as opposed to the visionary leading from the front? - Do I have the courage and patience required to amplify differences, even when discussion becomes heated and when ambiguity and complexity loom?

If your answer to any of these questions is “no” or even “I don’t know,” it’s probably time to look again at your own leadership role and at the leadership potential that may be hiding in your organization.

Q&A

Homework

Read House (1996) and answer following questions:

• What is the essence of the theory?
• How does leader behavior impact subordinates’ motivation, satisfaction, and performance?
• What leader behaviors have you experienced?
• Do you have empirical evidence on the propositions made?

Literature

Birkinshaw, Julian, and Kamini Gupta. 2013. “Clarifying the Distinctive Contribution of Ambidexterity to the Field of Organization Studies.” Academy of Management Perspectives 27 (4): 287–98.

Cameron, K. S., and R. E. Quinn. 2006. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. Addison-Wesley Series on Organization Development. Wiley. https://books.google.de/books?id=EgADAwAAQBAJ.

Denison, Daniel R, Robert Hooijberg, and Robert E Quinn. 1995. “Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership.” Organization Science 6 (5): 524–40.

Dewar, Robert D, and Jane E Dutton. 1986. “The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis.” Management Science 32 (11): 1422–33.

Hill, Linda A., G. Brandeau, E. Truelove, and K. Lineback. 2014a. Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading Innovation. G - Reference,information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Harvard Business Review Press. https://books.google.de/books?id=Lrx0AwAAQBAJ.

Hill, Linda A, Greg Brandeau, Emily Truelove, and Kent Lineback. 2014b. “Collective Genius.” Harvard Business Review 92 (6): 94–102.

House, Robert J. 1996. “Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and a Reformulated Theory.” The Leadership Quarterly 7 (3): 323–52.

Lavine, Marc. 2014. “Paradoxical Leadership and the Competing Values Framework.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 50 (2): 189–205.

Lawrence, Katherine A, Peter Lenk, and Robert E Quinn. 2009. “Behavioral Complexity in Leadership: The Psychometric Properties of a New Instrument to Measure Behavioral Repertoire.” The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2): 87–102.

McDermott, Christopher M, and Gina Colarelli O’connor. 2002. “Managing Radical Innovation: An Overview of Emergent Strategy Issues.” Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International Publication of the Product Development & Management Association 19 (6): 424–38.

O’Reilly III, Charles A, and Michael L Tushman. 2011. “Organizational Ambidexterity in Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit.” California Management Review 53 (4): 5–22.

Quinn, Robert E. 1988. Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance. Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, Robert E, Lynda S St Clair, Sue R Faerman, Michael P Thompson, and Michael R McGrath. 2020. Becoming a Master Manager: A Competing Values Approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Rescher, Nicholas. 2004. “Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolution.” Studia Logica 76 (1).

Spreitzer, Gretchen M, and Robert E Quinn. 1996. “Empowering Middle Managers to Be Transformational Leaders.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 32 (3): 237–61.

Tushman, Michael L, Wendy K Smith, and Andy Binns. 2011. “The Ambidextrous CEO.” Harvard Business Review 89 (6): 74–80.

Uhl-Bien, Mary, Russ Marion, and Bill McKelvey. 2007. “Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era.” The Leadership Quarterly 18 (4): 298–318.

Footnotes

1. A paradox can be defined as a set of mutually inconsistent propositions, each of which seems true (Rescher 2004).

2. Generosity here means the willingness, based on their own sense of personal security, to share power, control and credit

3. This includes the willingness to admit imperpections and asking for help