- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
We examine paradoxes in organizations and the organizations’ ability to deal with the resulting paradoxical tensions. Paradoxes constitute contradictory yet interrelated organizational demands that exist simultaneously, with the resulting tensions persisting over time. Irrespective of the prevailing evidence that engaging paradoxes leads to peak performance in the short-term, which reinforces longterm success, the question of how this might be done remains perplexing. Thus, based on pragmatic philosophy, this paper aims to increase our understanding of what constitutes a paradox and suggests a conceptual framework from which organizations and their members can frame and cope with tensions that result from paradoxes. Specifically, we conceptually map a way to achieve a synthesis of paradoxical tensions that is informed by design thinking. This synthesis is said to occur when competing demands are simultaneously fulfilled to their full potential. In this paper, design thinking – as a management concept – is used to refer to the interplay between perspective, structure, process, and mindset. It provides an alternative framing of how organizations approach paradoxes and deal with the resulting tensions.
In this paper, we began with the aim of achieving an increased understanding of competing demands, specifically of paradoxes, and of how organizations and their members can approach and deal with the resulting tensions. We specifically situated design thinking in organization studies and used it as a conceptual bridge to show how we can use it to deal with paradoxes and paradoxical tensions. To do that, we illustrated the building blocks of design thinking, namely, an integrative perspective, a symmetric organizational form, a process characterized by abduction and reframing, and an open-minded mindset. When framed in that way, design thinking could illuminate a context that enables organizational members to synthesize paradoxical tensions. It also focuses our attention towards an integrative perspective that engages the broad both–and views (Sanchez-Runde & Pettigrew, 2003; p. 245; Stroh & Miller, 1994). Fig. 2 shows how our conceptual framework of design thinking is assembled when aiming for synthesizing as a creative alternative.