4
1. Introduction
All organizations are operating in a changing environment. Only those organizations which are the most responsive to change are the ones that survive (Cawsey et al., 2016). Decisions of leaders aim to operate successfully by responding and adapting to changes in the environment (Wetherly & Otter, 2011). To respond successfully, leaders need to be sensitive, aware of their skills and knowledgeable about the environment (Cawsey et al., 2016). Next, Cawsey et al. (2016) argue that embracing change paradoxes is important in addition to having personal skills and a rich understanding of the environment. Paradoxes are defined as an ‘’observation in which two contradictory elements are seen as present or operating at the same time ‘’ (Hannum, MC Feeters & Booyson, 2010, p. 171). Embracing change paradoxes is necessary as leaders are operating in an environment full of change paradoxes, according to Holt & Seki (2012) ‘’leaders are operating in a context of multicultural, paradoxical complexity’’ (p. 196). Furthermore, embracing change paradoxes is important because decisions in change processes are only successful when change paradoxes are incorporated (Boonstra, 2004). Moreover, embracing change paradoxes is required for the development of the organization. If leaders deny the existence of change paradoxes they restrict the development of the organization (Pasmore, Woodman & Shani, 2010). Additionally, the incorporation of change paradoxes is important in order to understand change processes, since paradoxes are the vehicle to understand change processes (Downs, Besson, Louart, & Durant, 2006). The importance of embracing change paradoxes is clear from the literature, but change paradoxes remain difficult for leaders (Erez, Jarvenpaa, Lewis, Smith & Tracey, 2017). Therefore, research into the topic of change paradoxes in change processes in a business context is important to improve the managerial utilization of change paradoxes and increase the success rate of a change process.
1.1. Difficulties in Embracing Change Paradoxes
5 leaders to understand which paradoxes they will face in a change process, with the result that leaders may not even recognize some of the change paradoxes. This is confirmed in the study of Boonstra (2004): 70% of the change processes fail because leaders are making decisions based on the fashion of the day, instead of an understanding of change paradoxes. Besides the problem of a lack of scientific consensus regarding the most important change paradoxes, leaders are utilizing change paradoxes in an incorrect manner. Leaders make decisions from their own perspective of what is right and what is wrong (Hannum et al, 2010). This managerial utilization is problematic because utilizing change paradoxes is in fact not about right or wrong since there is no correct answer in the contradictory elements of the change paradoxes (Holt & Seki, 2012). The most effective manner to approach change paradoxes, according to Brughmans (2016) and Manderscheid (2012), is by using an both-and perspective instead of the either-or perspective, as it results in more flexibility to react to the dynamic environment (Brughmans, 2016). The both-and perspective means incorporating both ends of the change paradoxes and finding the balance between the contradictory elements (Brughmans, 2016).
6
time, money and the energy of employees. This study provides a benefit for leaders who need to manage change paradoxes. It is of managerial interest since it increases the knowledge of managing change paradoxes and the rate of change success. Increased knowledge of the utilization of change paradoxes allows leaders to find a balance in change paradoxes and improves the success of a change process. Research into the topic is also of theoretical interest because it fills up the gap by describing the new insights regarding the managerial utilization of change paradoxes. Based on the gap and the importance to fill this gap, the research question is defined as follows:
‘’How are leaders utilizing change paradoxes and in what manner can the managerial utilization of change paradoxes be improved? ‘’ The research question focuses on the following sub-questions: ● What is the level of managerial and organizational recognition of change paradoxes? ● How do leaders utilize change paradoxes in the organization? ● How can managerial utilization of change paradoxes be improved? Qualitative research will be conducted to answer the research question and to fill up the gap in the literature. A qualitative research method fits with the objective because it aids in- and results in theory building. Theory building is crucial as to the best of the current knowledge there is no information available regarding the ways in which leaders actually utilize change paradoxes. As background for this research the concept of change paradoxes is further explained in the next section together with the strategies, competencies and difficulties related to the utilization of change paradoxes.
2. Literature Review
In this chapter, the concept of change paradoxes is described first, followed by an explanation of the importance of embracing change paradoxes. Next, the section contains a description of the necessary competencies, the strategies to utilize change paradoxes as well as the difficulties related to utilizing change paradoxes. Furthermore, the current gap in the literature is described. Finally, the literature is translated into a conceptual framework to determine the important aspects of the utilization and to visualize the relation between the literature and this study.
2.1. Defining the Concept of Change Paradoxes
7
other’’ (Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016, p. 70). Paradoxes deal with the simultaneous presence of opposites (Beech, Burns, De Caestecker, McFeeters & Booysen, 2004) and can be explained by the example of a coin. The paradox corresponds with two sides of the same coin (Lüscher, Lewis & Ingram 2006). According to Nasim & Sushil (2011) managing change is about managing paradoxes, since paradoxes are salient in organizational change (Lewis, 2000). Change paradoxes are explained by Sparr (2018) as follows: ‘’the tensions between the old and the new situation because of the struggle between the need to change and adapt and the desire for order and stability’’ (p. 163). Examples of change paradoxes are innovation and efficiency, collaboration and competition, new and old (Shani & Noumair, 2014), action and doing, i-centric and we-centric (Fisher- Yoshida & Geller, 2009), flexibility and stability, focus and overview and autonomy and connecting (Johnson, 1992). Managers need to find a balance between the contradictory elements in order to manage change paradoxes, such as understanding in the paradox of action and doing (Fisher- Yoshida & Geller, 2009) and security in the paradox of flexibility and stability (Johnson, 1992). Understanding change paradoxes is important because they are becoming more pervasive in and around organizations (Clegg, Vieira da Cunha, & Pina e Cunha, 2002). Moreover, change paradoxes are important because they aid in understanding, accounting for and affecting organizational change (Downs et al., 2006). The importance of embracing change paradoxes is further explained in the next section.
2.2. Understanding the Importance of Embracing Change Paradoxes
8
Understanding the importance of embracing change paradoxes is required to increase the success of organizational changes. In order to approach change paradoxes correctly, managers need to understand the importance of embracing change paradoxes. This is necessary because change paradoxes cannot simply be solved by research and analysis but only by embracing them. Research and analysis is necessary since both contradictory elements are important to find a balance (Manderscheid, 2012). Due to the fact that change paradoxes cannot be solved, they must be understood on a deep level (Schuijt, 2009). This can be achieved by thinking. Thinking about the paradoxes results in understanding the contradictory elements without destroying the tensions between the contradictory elements (Schuijt, 2005). This understanding is necessary to think in a paradoxical manner and embrace the change paradoxes (Manderscheid, 2012). Knowledge of the importance of embracing change paradoxes and a deep level of understanding also help in recognizing the change paradoxes, which is the first step in handling the change paradoxes (Derksen et al., 2017).
2.3. Competencies of Leaders to Manage Change Paradoxes.
Understanding and knowledge regarding change paradoxes are necessary but not sufficient to recognize change paradoxes. Leaders need to have certain skills to embrace change paradoxes (Manderscheid, 2012; Peters, 2012). The literature proposes five competencies as necessary to embrace change paradoxes. First, embracing change paradoxes should be part of a toolkit for leaders to manage and affect changes (Whittle & Downs, 2006). Second, leaders need to expect and be aware of the existence of change paradoxes, because paradoxical situations may not always be clear. This awareness makes it easier to address change paradoxes (Peters, 2012). Third, leaders need to approach change paradoxes as an opportunity rather than a conflict (Peters, 2012). According to Burns (1999), the correct way to approach change paradoxes is by finding a balance and making a decision in the elements of the change paradox. Fourth, leaders need to ask for help to recognize change paradoxes (Peters, 2012) and provide help to employees to resolve their defensiveness (Sparr, 2018; Lewis, 2000; Vince & Broussines, 1996). This can be done by helping the employees in making sense of the change paradoxes by embracing them (Sparr, 2018). Finally, leaders needs to have a both-and paradoxical mindset to find a sustainable solution. In order to achieve a paradoxical mindset leaders must learn to appreciate both sides of the sides of the paradox as important (Peters, 2012).
2.4. Strategies to Manage Change Paradoxes
9
either-or and the both-and strategies. The three strategies can be utilized in different manners. This is considered as the third step of handling change paradoxes but falls outside the scope of this study. For this reason, only a brief description of the strategies to respond to change paradoxes is given here.
10 making decisions, rather than understanding change paradoxes (Boonstra, 2004). Fourth, leaders are stuck in their own perspective of right and wrong in the contradictory elements (Hannum et al, 2010). However, there is neither right, nor wrong nor a final solution in change paradoxes (Holt & Seki, 2012). A change paradox cannot be solved by choosing between right and wrong but only by managing and embracing (Terry, 2001). Finally, leaders are encountering difficulties in recognizing change paradoxes since there is no consensus regarding the important change paradoxes (Holt & Seki, 2012). Despite the growing number of studies since the request of Quinn & Cameron (1988) to better explore the competing demands of change processes, change paradoxes remain difficult for leaders (Erez et al., 2017). Previous studies showed the influence of change paradoxes on the change processes and contain strategies to utilize change paradoxes. However, there remains ambiguity regarding the method that leaders utilize in managing change paradoxes. This gap is confirmed in the study of Derksen et al. (2017): according to them there is no agreement regarding the managerial utilization of paradoxes, since the literature merely explains that there are three strategies for managing change paradoxes. It is necessary to clarify the managerial utilization of change paradoxes since the method of recognizing and handling change paradoxes directly affects the change outcome. Moreover, research is needed concerning the best way to manage change paradoxes, since ‘’paradoxes don’t provide an immediate answer to the question of how managers should act’’ (Lüscher, 2018, p. 67). Therefore, it is important to research the managerial utilization of change paradoxes to support managers in their tasks.
2.6. The Managerial Utilization: Towards A Conceptual framework
11
other studies related to these steps to determine the utilization and influence on the change outcome. The steps of handling the change paradoxes and the concepts of this study are visualized in Figure 1.
Based on the gap and the contribution of the utilization to the success of the change process, this study has the goal to ‘’discover how the managerial utilization of change paradoxes can be improved to increase the success of change processes.’’ In order to achieve this goal, the research question is defined as follows: ‘’How are leaders utilizing change paradoxes and in what manner can the managerial utilization of change paradoxes be improved?‘’ The research question and sub-questions of this study are related to the steps proposed by Derksen et al. (2017) and to the conceptual framework visualized in Figure 1. The first question is: ‘’What is the level of managerial and organizational recognition of change paradoxes?’’ This corresponds to the step of recognizing the paradoxes. The second sub-question, ‘’How do leaders utilize change paradoxes in the organization?’’ corresponds to the step of responding to change paradoxes. The third sub-question, ‘’How can managerial utilization of change paradoxes be improved?’’ corresponds to the outcome of conducting the three steps namely embracing the change paradoxes.
12
3. Methodology
First, the design of this study is described in section 3.1. Subsequently, the methods of collecting data are explained in 3.2. The third paragraph contains an explanation of the manner of analyzing the data. Finally, in section 3.4 the research criteria of reliability and validity are evaluated for this study.
3.1. Research Design
The research question and the sub-questions will be answered by conducting qualitative research. This approach is useful for this study for three reasons. The first reason to conduct qualitative research is to fill the literature gap. Conducting qualitative research will result in building theory (Denyer & Tranfield, 2006) regarding the managerial utilization that is necessary to improve the utilization and work more efficient through change paradoxes. Second, qualitative research will result in a deeper understanding of a certain phenomenon (Anderson, 2010). The goal of this study is to discover how the success of a change process can be improved; this is only possible when the concept of change paradoxes is understood. Finally, qualitative research makes it possible to gather knowledge about the why behind a certain answer (Jones, 1995). The qualitative study will be conducted at the province of Friesland. The leaders at the Frisian provincial organization recently conducted a change process by changing the organization’s structure from working in departments to task-driven working. Thus, the 13 sampled managers, the coach and the advisor have vast experience with change paradoxes in change processes. As a result, the managers of the Frisian provincial organization are qualified to answer the questions regarding their method of utilizing change paradoxes. The utilization of change paradoxes will be discovered by using document analysis and interviews, which allows to (dis)confirm findings (Gillham, 2000). The research methods are motivated in the next section.
3.2. Data Collection
The research question will be answered by conducting document analysis, followed by interviews. In this section the use of document analysis and interviews is motivated.
13
organizational and managerial ability to recognize change paradoxes and the awareness of their existence. The organization and managers are able to recognize the change paradoxes when both contradictory elements are mentioned, and unaware if only one of the contradictory elements is mentioned in the documents. Third, the strategy of responding to the change paradoxes is defined by analyzing the proposed solutions for the change paradoxes and comparing them to the strategies of the literature. Three internal documents of the organization are analyzed and a description of these documents is included in Appendix II.
14
analysis is also used as input for the interviews as a check to prevent for research bias from the document analysis. Conversely, the interviews helps to clarify and confirm information from the document analysis related to the ability to recognize and respond to the change paradoxes. In this way, the interviews and the document analysis complements each other (Bowen, 2009). The transcripts of the interviews are included in Appendix IV.
15 3.4.1. Reliability. According to Golafshani (2003), reliability is ‘’the extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total population and if the results of a study can be reproduced’’ (p. 5). The subject of this study is the Province of Friesland, which an organization that is currently changing its organizational structure to task-driven working. The reliability of this study project is secured because the leaders of the organization are currently managing change paradoxes in a change process. These leaders are an accurate representation of the population because they fit the research population and the subject of this research. The reliability is further ensured by the inclusion of 15 interviewees, who accurately represent the population and as a result provide reliable results. Moreover, the reliability is guaranteed by conducting interviews in support of an interview protocol, so that the results of the interviews can be easily reproduced. Additionally, the structure of the interviews is uniform in all the interviews, resulting in consistent outcomes. Finally, the reliability is ensured by analyzing the transcripts of the interviews in a clear and structured manner. Other researchers could conduct the coding process in the same manner and achieve the same results since the process of coding and the coding scheme are provided.
3.4.2. Validity. According to Golafshani (2003), validity is ‘’whether the researcher truly
16
4.1. Recognizing Change Paradoxes
The section first discusses the organizational knowledge and awareness of change paradoxes, followed by the knowledge, awareness and managerial competencies of the individuals. 4.1.1. Organizational awareness and knowledge of change paradoxes. The document analysis provided insight into 12 unique change paradoxes, which are used to assess the organizational ability to recognizing the change paradoxes and whether the organization is (un)aware of the existence of the change paradoxes. The 12 unique change paradoxes were defined by analyzing the documents, recognizing the contradictory elements, followed by defining the change paradox. The 12 change paradoxes are described in Table 3 of Appendix II.Awareness exists when the contradictory elements are clearly addressed in the organizational documents. This was the case for four change paradoxes. A change paradox that was clearly addressed in the document ‘’the organization plan’’ is the change paradox of long and short term goals, as it is mentioned that the solution needs to focus on the long and short term. It is remarkable that the contradictory elements are mentioned in the documents but not identified as a change paradox. Organizational unawareness exists if only one of the contradictory elements of the change paradox is mentioned. This is found for eight of the change paradoxes. For instance, in the change paradox of focus on the process and on the outcome, the organization is only concerned with the process, which is recognized in all of the documents. The remaining findings related to the (un)awareness of change paradoxes are included in Appendix II. In total the documents contained 28 change paradoxes. Some change paradoxes were addressed by mentioning the contradictory elements but were not defined as change paradoxes. However, the document analysis shows that in most cases only one side of the change paradoxes is mentioned. According to six managers, the coach and the advisor change paradoxes are not integrated in the daily tasks of the organization and in the change processes. They indicated that change paradoxes are not a concern, since they never heard the expression ‘’change paradox’’ in the organization (interview 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 15). In contrast, according to interviewees 2, 10 and 14, change paradoxes are taken into consideration in the organization and change process, but in an implicit manner: ‘’We did not formulate it like paradoxes but of course, there were paradoxes’’ (interview 10). The interviews shows that change paradoxes from managers’ perspective are not a concern in the organization. Awareness exists in some cases but only in an implicit manner. Thus, both methods confirm that the contradictory elements are not identified as change paradoxes.
17
13 is sceptical. Moreover, the eight managers who stated that change paradoxes are not incorporated in the organization suggested that awareness is necessary, but this was not mentioned by the three managers who mentioned that change paradoxes are managed implicitly. The interviews confirm that managers understand the importance of awareness and embracing change paradoxes. This is confirmed by the fact that managers are able to explain the positive outcomes of embracing and the consequences of not embracing change paradoxes.
The coach, the advisor and 12 managers understood the importance of embracing change paradoxes. This is supported by three arguments of interviewees. First, according to interviewee 1 and 3, incorporating change paradoxes in processes results in better decisions, since analyzing the change paradox results in conscious decisions instead of simply accepting the proposed solution. Second, interviewee 4 suggested that embracing change paradoxes results in more positivity towards the solution, because including both elements of the change paradoxes in the solution results in winners only. Finally, in the view of interviewees 8 and 10, taking change paradoxes into consideration results in a better understanding. The understanding of managers regarding the importance of embracing change paradoxes is confirmed in the interviews, but there is no agreement on what these positive outcomes are. The eight interviewees, who stated that change paradoxes are not taken into consideration confirm that the unawareness on the organizational level has consequences for the organization, but the exact consequences are not confirmed. Examples of consequences are bad decisions (interview 7) and negativity towards a decision (interview 14). Moreover, interviewee 13 noted that the unawareness in the organization also influences the managers’ (un)awareness because awareness on organizational level is essential for managers to embrace change paradoxes. According to this interviewee, paradoxical thinking in the organization is not incorporated in the organization because ‘’without awareness of the problem of contradictory elements or explicit questions from the management, there is no starting point to take paradoxes into consideration’’. The managerial awareness of change paradoxes is further explained in the next section.
4.1.2. Managers’ competencies, knowledge and awareness of change paradoxes. There is no documentation of the knowledge and awareness of the existence of change paradoxes on the individual level. Therefore, no document analysis could be performed for these aspects.
18
building knowledge is necessary in order to improve the utilization of change paradoxes (interview 1, 3, 4, 11 and 14). The interviews reveal that managers lack knowledge related to change paradoxes because five managers noted that building knowledge is required and unawareness exists for 12 managers due to a lack of knowledge.
Considering the managerial inability to explaining the concept of change paradoxes, one would also expect a lack of awareness of the role of change paradoxes, but this is not the case. There are two remarkable findings related to (un)awareness of managers. First, awareness and unawareness in the practical examples of managers are almost equally distributed. Awareness was found 28 times, awareness in an subconscious manner 11 times and unawareness 30 times. Second, the five managers who were not able to explain the concept of paradoxes are not necessarily more unaware than managers who were able to explain change paradoxes more correctly. Managers with more knowledge of the concept of change paradoxes are not automatically more aware of change paradoxes. The interviews provide four explanations of why some managers have a higher awareness compared to their peers and three reasons for a higher unawareness. Only the factors related to unawareness are confirmed in this study since the interviews reveal that awareness sometimes exists in complex projects but in an subconscious manner, this is explained below. First, there are personal and team characteristics: ‘’it depends on the personality of the people, how people are approaching these kinds of issues differs for every individual and team’’ (interview 2). This is also confirmed by interviewees 3, 4 and 7. Individual activities, such as thinking and doing affect awareness. Second, the managerial style affects the awareness (interview 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10). Third, there is a dependency on the complexity of a project. According to interviewee 1, 3, 7, 11 and 14, managing change paradoxes is required in the case of complex projects, such as the change of structure (interview 14). Managing change paradoxes is necessary in complex projects, since there is no available solution and both contradictory elements are required to find a solution. Finally, awareness is influenced by the working experience of managers. The interviews show that managers with more working experience are on average more aware of change paradoxes. An analysis of the interviews shows that a higher frequency of unawareness is found for managers with less experience. Experience in different industries is also a determinant for awareness: ‘’I have a background in a business environment, so I was raised differently that helps me in these kinds of issues’’ (interview 10). This is corroborated by interviewee 2 and by managers without experience in different industries (see paragraph 4.2.2.2).
19
awareness exists in complex projects. The second reason why certain managers are more unaware of change paradoxes than others is related to time management. Managers have insufficient time to focus on change paradoxes, according to interviewees 1 and 7 and the advisor. Finally, 10 managers are unaware due to lacking knowledge, but this is not the case for interviewees 3, 4 and 15. The remaining competencies are not specifically mentioned by the interviewees.
4.2. Utilization of Change Paradoxes
This section describes the utilization of change paradoxes on the organizational and individual levels, followed by the factors that influence the utilization. 4.2.1. Utilization of change paradoxes on the organizational level. The 28 change paradoxes found in the documents were analyzed to define the organizational utilization of change paradoxes, based on the strategies in the literature. For 13 change paradoxes no strategy was found, because no solution was proposed for the contradictory elements. Nine change paradoxes were resolved by taking one contradictory element in consideration with the either-or strategy. Five change paradoxes were approached with the both-and strategy. These findings are also included in Appendix II.
Regarding the organizational utilization, the interview show that the both-and strategy is barely applied. Only interviewees 10, 12 and 14, mentioned that the both-and strategy is applied on the management level. These findings from the interviews are in line with the findings from document analysis. As stated in section 4.1.1., according to eight interviewees, change paradoxes are often not taken into consideration. Four of the sampled managers mentioned that in case of organizational awareness the either-or strategy is applied and three interviewees mentioned that change paradoxes are solved with the both-and strategy. The interviews shows that change paradoxes are often not utilized at the organizational level, while from the managers’ perspective the both- and strategy is the most effective the application. The application of this strategy is difficult, as interviewee 13 explains below. Interviewee 13. The organization is managing paradoxes by using the either-or strategy, I am using the either-or strategy in the collective as well since I am part of a system and patterns. I do agree that the both-and strategy will result in advantages but I am not optimistic about changing our strategy. That is only possible if we have more people in our organization who think differently and see the importance of managing paradoxes.
20
strategy. Five managers noted that the application of the either-or strategy and not incorporating change paradoxes results in two inefficiencies. The consequences of these strategies are unsatisfied employees (interview 1 and 10) and less organizational improvement (interview 4, 5 and 7). However, the traditional and the either-or strategy are effective in low urgency situations (interview 7, 10 and 15) or when decision making (interview 2 and 10) in the change paradox is required. The interviews confirm the advantages and the disadvantages of the both-and, traditional and the either-or strategy, but the either-or strategy is already a step in the right direction (interview 1 and 13). 4.2.2. Utilization of change paradoxes on the managerial level. Eight managers, the coach and the advisor mentioned that their utilization in case of awareness is compatible with the both-and strategy and five managers utilize change paradoxes with a combination of the either-or and the both-and strategies. However, of these 15 interviewees, 8 interviewees also mentioned that they do not recognize all the change paradoxes and utilize change paradoxes in case of unawareness with the traditional strategy. From the managers’ perspective, on the individual level, the change paradoxes are utilized with the both-and strategy because it results in a better solution (interview 1, 2 and 10) and more commitment (interview 10 and 14). While the managers believe that their utilization is compatible with the both-and strategy, the actual situation is different. This is confirmed by analyzing the managers’ practical examples. Based on analyzing the 35 practical examples the managers mentioned in the interviews, the managers utilize the change paradoxes with the either-or strategy 23 times. The interviews reveal that managers utilize change paradoxes with the either-or strategy because they feel pressured and have insufficient time to embrace change paradoxes (interview 7, 11, 12 and 13). The advisor of the employee schedule confirms this: ‘’Managers are busy working on the daily tasks and are not focused on the future’’ (interview 9).
21 working depends on factors such as urgency and project deadlines. Moreover, the interviews clarified other influencing factors on the individual’s utilization of change paradoxes defined as personal and organizational characteristics these are explained in the next sections.
4.2.2.1. Influencing factors on the managerial utilization of change paradoxes: personal characteristics. Four factors are found to influence the utilization of change paradoxes, all related to personal characteristics. First, the personality of managers determines how people will react to change paradoxes (interview 3, 4, 7, 12 and 13). Interviewee 4 explains: ‘’I keep it by my own way of working. I will act how I want to act and I am not changing this way of acting because of seeing a paradox’’ Second, the habits of managers affect whether they will embrace change paradoxes. When paradoxical thinking is not integrated in the manager’s habits, change paradoxes are not taken into consideration (interview 12, 13 and 14). Third, the manager’s working experience influences the utilization of change paradoxes. Managers with more experience have more knowledge about the advantages and negative consequences of the strategies. On average, these managers mentioned more advantages and consequences of the strategies, allowing for a more conscious decision. Though managers with more experience are better in approaching the change paradoxes, they lack important self-knowledge. These managers noted that their utilization is compatible with the both-and strategy but in actual fact this strategy is barely applied. Managers with less experience have more self-knowledge about their utilization, as they mentioned that they approach change paradoxes with the either-or strategy or a combination of strategies. Finally, according to nine manager and the coach, the utilization of change paradoxes is influenced by the lack of time to manage change paradoxes. As a result, managers do not embrace change paradoxes. This study confirms the influence of personal characteristics since 10 of the managers mentioned them, but this study does not provide enough insights to determine what these personal characteristics are.
4.2.2.2. Influencing factors on the managerial utilization of change paradoxes: organizational characteristics. Besides personal characteristics, managerial utilization is also
22 strategy is mostly applied in the organization, according to interviewee 2. The either-or strategy is dominant in the organization because there is no urgency to embrace the change paradoxes, according to seven of the interviewees. Interviewee 12 explains: ‘’urgency is important when there is urgency we will change and paradoxes become more important’’. The third factor is the working department. The utilization of change paradoxes is influenced by the manager’s kinds of tasks (interview 3 , 6, 9 and 14). Fourth, eight managers mentioned that the utilization is influenced by the structure and culture of the organization. Finally, the power of the department affects the utilization because the department with the most power determines how to act on a certain contradiction. This was mentioned by interviewee 4, 10 and 13. The interviews reveal that the organizational characteristics, such as type of the organization, the structure and urgency affects the utilization of change paradoxes. However, the influence of power and working department were mentioned only a few times.
4.2.2.3. Difficulties in utilizing change paradoxes. The utilization of change paradoxes is
established based on the findings of document analysis and interviews. However, the interviews reveal that managers encounter several difficulties in the utilization of change paradoxes. It is important to note that working experience affects the amount of difficulties managers encounter. On average, the managers with less experience encounter four difficulties, while managers with more experience encounter two difficulties. This study confirms that 10 of the managers in this study encounter difficulties related to recognizing change paradoxes and 11 of them encounter difficulties related to working with individuals. It is important to note that the study provides insight into some problems but there may be more. The interviews revealed four specific problems and 11 managers, the coach and the advisor encountered one or more of them. Only interviewee 2 and 15 did not encounter difficulties. First, the difficulty of recognizing change paradoxes was encountered by four interviewees due to lack of knowledge, pressure to act and because of unawareness of change paradoxes. Second the difficulty of solution finding and decision making, encountered by seven interviewees and the result of acting to careful and because managers are stuck in their own perspective. As for working with people, nine interviewees encountered the difficulty of getting people moving and five dealt with the problem of what’s in it for me. The causes of these difficulties are individual behaviours and habits. Six managers, the coach and the advisor saw the need to improve the utilization, as described in the next section.
4.3. Improving the Utilization of Change Paradoxes
23
25
managers (interview 1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14), but two other interviewees mentioned that managers need to make time to embrace the change paradox (interview 8 and 10). Furthermore, mentioned by 14 interviewees is that communication and collaboration between departments is also important, since it results in different perspectives. The interviews confirm the different steps at the individual level as necessary: three of the four managers with less experience mentioned the importance of building knowledge and eight of the managers mentioned the importance of training and practise to develop a paradoxical mindset.
5. Discussion & Conclusion
In this chapter, the research question will be answered by defining a conclusion. First in section 5.1, the three sub-questions are answered and compared with the existing literature. Based on the answers on the sub-questions, the research question, ‘’How are leaders utilizing change paradoxes and in what manner can the managerial utilization with change paradoxes be improved? ‘’ is answered in 5.2. Next, theoretical and managerial implications are formulated. This chapter closes with a discussion of the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.5.1. Discussion of the Research Findings
In this section the sub-questions of this study are answered. The most important literature and results are discussed first, followed by answering the sub-questions by combining the literature and results. 5.1.1. Recognizing change paradoxes. The first sub-question was defined as: ‘’What is the level of managerial and organizational recognition of change paradoxes?’’. As indicated in the literature knowledge, managerial competencies (Manderscheid, 2012) and awareness (Peters, 2012) are required to recognize the change paradoxes. These are used as a framework to answer the sub-question during the research and the results are in line with existing literature.26 paradoxes are currently not a concern. Moreover, it is found that managers are mostly unaware of change paradoxes as well, because of lack of knowledge, time management constraints, prioritization of daily tasks, lack of experience and the managerial awareness is influenced by the organizational unawareness. Managers need a certain motivation from the organizational level to embrace change paradoxes. This study shows that managerial awareness mostly exists in complex projects in an subconscious manner when there is no solution directly in forehand. There is also a lack in the remaining competencies, as the interviewees mention these competencies as ways to improve the utilization of change paradoxes
Based on the results of the document analysis and the interviews, it can be concluded regarding the first sub-question that the ability to recognize change paradoxes is low. Both methods reveal that the managerial competencies, the organizational knowledge and organizational and managerial awareness are low. Despite the fact that managers have knowledge regarding the advantages of change paradoxes, this does not yet translate to embracing the change paradoxes. Furthermore, managers are unable to explain the concept of change paradoxes. The low knowledge of the concept, awareness and managerial competencies result in difficulties of recognizing change paradoxes, which is confirmed by four of the sampled managers. This is also confirmed by the eight interviewees who mentioned that they do not recognize all the change paradoxes. Thus, the ability to recognize change paradoxes is low, since change paradoxes are only recognized in complex projects. The results of this study are in line with the view of Manderscheid (2012) and Peters (2012). However, this study shows that general knowledge related to the concept of change paradoxes is important alongside knowledge regarding the importance of change paradoxes. This is necessary to recognize the contradictory elements of the change paradoxes. 5.1.2. Managerial utilization of change paradoxes. In this section the second sub-question, ‘’How do leaders utilize change paradoxes in the organization?’’ is answered. The literature contains three strategies to handle change paradoxes. The traditional and the either-or strategy are considered ineffective because applying these strategies results in inefficiencies (Derksen et al., 2017). Derksen et al. (2017) claim that the both-and strategy is the only effective strategy.
27
28 Figure 3 The managerial utilization of change paradoxes 5.1.3. Improving managerial utilization of change paradoxes. In this section the sub-
question, ‘’How can managerial utilization of change paradoxes be improved?’’ is answered. As previously stated in section 5.1.1, change paradoxes are not a concern on the organizational level, but eight interviewees mention that improving the utilization of change paradoxes is important. It is unclear in the literature, as described in the gap how the managers are utilizing change paradoxes and how the utilization of change paradoxes can be improved. The findings on this points cannot therefore be compared with the literature.
This study shows that several activities are necessary on the organizational and individual levels to improve the utilization of change paradoxes. Improving the utilization starts at the organizational level by creating awareness, defining a vision, gathering new perspectives by hiring new employees and setting up conditions to embrace change paradoxes. After making change paradoxes a concern at the organizational level, it is important to translate the awareness to the individual level by communicating the vision. Moreover, building knowledge, training and practising with embracing change paradoxes is needed to develop a paradoxical mindset. This is necessary since managers need to think in a paradoxical manner to embrace the change paradoxes.
29
to clarify the importance of embracing change paradoxes. Second, defining a vision is necessary to translate the importance of embracing change paradoxes to the employees. Third, new employees are needed to support managers in working with change paradoxes. Finally, working conditions are necessary to let employees work in the same manner.
30
The traditional and the either-or strategy are considered ineffective, while the both-and strategy is effective (Derksen et al., 2017).
This study shows that the sampled managers do understand the importance of embracing change paradoxes but this knowledge is not yet translated to action. Next, the interviews reveals that knowledge related to the concept of change paradoxes is missing, since managers are unable to explain them. Furthermore, the level of competencies and awareness are also low. Competencies are missing since enhancing these is the proposed solution to improve managerial utilization. Also, it is found that managers are only aware of change paradoxes in complex projects, as there is no solution readily available. In the case of awareness, managers are utilizing change paradoxes mostly with the either-or strategy. From the manager’s perspective the both-and strategy is the most effective strategy, but it appears that the other strategies are effective in certain situations. This study reveals that the utilization is influenced by internal and external circumstances such as urgency, therefore the managers are utilizing change paradoxes from a contingency perspective. Research shows that managers tend to utilize change paradoxes with the either-or strategy, but the remaining strategies are applied as well. Regarding some managers the either-or strategy is already a step in the right way but improving the utilization is important for the managers. This study recommends that the organizational level is the first step to improve the managers’ utilization of change paradoxes, followed by activities at the individual level. The utilization at the organizational level needs to be improved before improving the utilization at the individual level, since managers need a certain motivation from the organizational level to embrace change paradoxes. The first step is creating awareness at the organizational level, followed by defining a vision, an inflow of new employees and defining methods to embrace change paradoxes. After making change paradoxes a concern, several activities need to be conducted at the individual level. First, knowledge related to the change paradoxes needs to be developed, followed by training and practising to integrate the knowledge into the habits of the managers and to create a paradoxical mindset.
31
This study reveals that knowledge, competencies and awareness are required to recognize and respond correctly to the change paradoxes. This is clear from the fact that interviewed managers propose to improve the utilization along the line of knowledge, competencies and awareness. Therefore, the results agree with existing literature regarding the importance of knowledge, competencies and awareness. However, the first step to improve the utilization is creating awareness on the organizational level followed by developing knowledge, competencies and awareness on the organizational level. From a managerial perspective, it is important to improve the managerial utilization of change paradoxes, since over time it will results in time in better decisions and increased success of a change process.
5.3. Theoretical Implications
This study is contributing to a better understanding of the managerial utilization of change paradoxes by deriving new implications. Moreover, this study extends four existing studies. Three new implications are derived from this study. First, this study contributes to the theory by defining the managerial utilization of change paradoxes, since previous studies were unanimous about the individual utilization of change paradoxes (Derksen et al., 2017). Managers are utilizing change paradoxes mostly with the either-or strategy but the both-and and traditional strategy are applied by managers as well. The either-or strategy is dominating in the organization since managers are experiencing pressure to make a decision. Second, this study contributes to the theory by defining factors that influence the managerial utilization of change paradoxes. `The influencing factors are defined as organizational and personal characteristics and are visualized in Figure 3, Finally this study adds perspectives on how change paradoxes can be utilized in a more effective manner, namely by improving the utilization on organizational level by creating awareness followed by creating a paradoxical mindset on the individual level.32
5.4. Managerial implications
This study aims at the managerial utilization of the change paradoxes. Managerial implications are derived from this study due to the focus on the individual. This study points out three implications that are useful for the managers in their utilization of change paradoxes. First, the managers noted that they never consciously thought about change paradoxes. This study encourage and helps managers to think in a different manner. It can help managers to become aware of the existence of change paradoxes and support them in utilizing change paradoxes. This implication is confirmed by the sampled managers: ‘’this conversation makes me aware of the role of paradoxes in decision-making. I am thinking in a more conscious manner now’’ (interview 7). Second, this study is revealing how managers can utilize change paradoxes more effectively. The literature presents various strategies to utilize change paradoxes, but the literature lacks a description of how managers are utilizing change paradoxes and how the difficulties managers encounter can be solved. This study fills the gap and supports managers in improving their utilization of change paradoxes. This is helpful for managers, as they do feel the need to improve their utilization of change paradoxes. Finally, this study supports managers by giving insight into their utilization of change paradoxes and the advantages and disadvantages related to their paradoxical strategies.5.5. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research.
The study provided insights in the utilization of change paradoxes, based on the findings of the research. The limitations of this study and suggestion for future research are described in this section. Document analysis and interviews were conducted to increase the validity, since a combination of methods makes it possible to (dis)confirm findings. However, due to missing documents it was difficult to compare the findings. The document analysis in this study is therefore limited. Combining two research methods was necessary to increase the validity, but document analysis was not the ideal method. A more effective method combined with interviews to determine the managerial utilization would be observation. This is clear from the findings of the response bias in the interviews. From the sampled managers’ perspective, their utilization of change paradoxes is the both-and strategy, while the practical examples show that managers tend to utilize change paradoxes with the either-or strategy. Therefore, observation is a more effective research method to confirm the findings of the interviews related to the utilization of change paradoxes and it is recommended to observe managers in the utilization of change paradoxes to confirm the results of this study.
33
managed in a different manner in a commercial organization than in a governance organization. The single-industry focus is a limitation of this study, because the findings are not generalizable to other industries. It is suggested to conduct a similar study in other industries and to (dis)confirm the influence of the industry. This is important, as there appears to be no literature regarding the differences in managing change paradoxes in different types of industries. Next, research into the topic of managerial utilization is necessary to generalize the findings to other managers. 13 managers were interviewed but the findings are not generalizable due to the fact that the utilization of change paradoxes is influenced by personal characteristics. For this reason, some of the findings of this study are not confirmed, such as the factors that influence awareness. Therefore, research into the topic of utilization with a larger sample of managers is necessary to determine the utilization of paradoxes and the factors that influence the utilization.
34
6.
References
Anderson, C. (2010). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 74(8), 141.
Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative Data: An Introduction to Coding and Analysis. New York, Usa: NYU Press.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008, 4 december). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544–559.
Beech, N., Burns, H., De Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704048357
Boonstra, J. (2004). Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning. West Sussex, England: Wiley. Boonstra, J. J., & Caluwé, L. I. A. (2006). Interveniëren en veranderen: zoeken naar betekenis in
interacties. Alphen aan den rijn, Nederland: Kluwer.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027 Brughmans, I. (2016). Paradoxaal leiderschap. Amsterdam, Nederland: Boom. Cawsey, T., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2016). Organizational Change: An Action Oriented Toolkit (3e ed.). London, UK: Sage. Clegg, S., Vieira da Cunha, J., & Pina e Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2006). Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227.
Derksen, K., Blomme, R. J., De Caluwé, L., Rupert, J., & Simons, R. J. (2017). Breaking the Paradox: Understanding How Teams Create Developmental Space. Journal of Management Inquiry, , 1– 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617718090
Downs, A., Besson, D., Louart, P., & Durant, R. (2006). Paradoxes in Management. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rug/reader.action?docID=275497 Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532- 550. F Auerbach, C., & B Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis. New York, USA: NYU Press. Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Geller, K. D. (2009). Transnational Leadership Development: Preparing the Next Generation for the Borderless Business World. New York, USA: American Management Association.
Gillham, B. (2000). Research Interview. Eastbourne, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
35
Hannum, K., McFeeters, B. B., & Booysen, L. (2010). Leading Across Differences: Casebook. San Francisco, USA: Pfeiffer.
Hirschhorn, L. (2016). Managers at Work: Manage Polarities Before They Manage You. Research-Technology Management, 44(5), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671448 Holt, K., & Seki, K. (2012). Global Leadership: A Developmental Shift for Everyone. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 5(02), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01431.x Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity Management: Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. Michigan, US: HRD Press. Jones, R. (1995). Why do qualitative research? British Medical Journal, 311(6996). K. Smith, W., Erez, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Lewis, M. W., & Tracey, P. (2017). Adding Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change: Introduction to Organization Studies Special Issue on Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of Innovation and Change. Organization Studies, 38(3-4), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617693560
King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. Singapore, Asia: SAGE Publications. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(4), 760. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204 Lüscher, L., Lewis, M., & Ingram, A. (2006). The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 491–502. Lüscher, L., & Lewis, M. (2008). Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working through Paradox. The Academy Of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240. Lüscher, L. S. (2018). Managing Leadership Paradoxes. New York, U.S: ROUTLEDGE. Manderscheid, S. (2012). Managing polarity, paradox, and dilemma during leader transition. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(9), 856–872.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1174583
Nasim, S., & Sushil. (2011). Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of Managing Continuity and Change. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2010.538854
Noble, H., & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 18(2), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054
Pasmore, W. A., Woodman, R. W., & Shani, A. B. (2010). Research in Organizational Change and Development (3rd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
36
Prenkert, F. (2006). A theory of organized information by activity theory: The locus of paradoxes, sources of change, and challenge van management. Journal Of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 471–490.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, Engeland: Ballinger Publishing Company.
R Burns, L. (1999). Polarity Management: The Key Challenge for Integrated Health Systems. Journal of Healthcare Management, 44(1), 1–12.
Reeves, T., Duncan, J., & Grinter, P. (2007). Leading Change by Managing Paradoxes. Journal of Leadership studies, 7(1), 13–30.
Schuijt, L. (2009). Met ziel en zakelijkheid: paradoxen in leiderschap. Schiedam, Nederland: Scriptum. Schuijt, L. (2005). Leaders and Paradoxes. Holland Management Review, 99.
Shani, A., & Noumair, D. (2014). Research in Organizational Change and Development. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Sparr, J. L. (2018). Paradoxes in Organizational Change: The Crucial Role of Leaders’ Sensegiving.
Journal of Change Management, 18(2), 162–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1446696 Taylor-Bianco, A., & Schermerhorn JR, J. (2006). Self-regulation, strategic leadership and paradoxes in organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change management, 19(4), 457–470. Terry, R. W. (2001). Seven Zones for Leadership: Acting Authentically in Stability and Chaos. London, UK: Davies-Black Pub. Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996, January 1). Paradox, Defense and Attachment: Accessing and Working with Emotions and Relations Underlying Organizational Change. Organisation Studies, 12(1), 1–21. Wetherly, P., & Otter, D. (2011). The business environment: themes and issues (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy- ub.rug.nl/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzY3ODIzNF9fQU41?sid=b7eed68a-8304-4ea4-af04-80b88182d42f@sdc-v-sessmgr06&vid=0&format=EB&lpid=lp_1&rid=0
Whittle, A., & Downs, A. (2006). Paradoxical repertoires of management consultancy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 424–436.
Wolfswinkel, J., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55.
37
7. Appendices
38
42
Appendix II: Analysis of the Documents
Document analysis is conducted to gain insight into the organization’s and managers’ ability to recognize and respond to change paradoxes. The three analyzed documents are described in part A of this Appendix, including the importance of these documents and the data they contain, before presenting the results of their analysis. This analysis is conduct in three steps: open, axial and selective coding. The outcomes of the steps of open and axial coding are included in the codebook of Part B of this Appendix. Part C contains the results of selective coding and visualizes the different steps of the coding process in the schematic overviews.
A. Documents and data analyzed. The documents analysis focuses on the organizational and individual level to define the ability to recognize and respond to change paradoxes. The documents of the organization are gathered via the coach of the organization. However, no documents are available at the individual level. Therefore, the results of the document analysis are limited to the organizational level. The importance of the documents and the data they contain is described in Table 2. Table 2 Documents and Data analyzed
44
Table 3 Codebook of the document analysis
Code group Code Frequency Document
46
Appendix III: Analysis of the Interviews.
The interview transcripts, included in Appendix IV are analyzed by using open, axial and selective coding with the goal of finding patterns and comparing them with the patterns of the document analysis to (dis)confirm findings. First, open coding is conducted to find concepts. Subsequently, the transcripts are analyzed and the concepts are divided into sub-categories by applying axial coding. Lastly, selective coding is conducted to integrate the sub-categories into larger categories. The results of open and axial coding are included in Part A of this Appendix. The results of selective coding are included in Part B of this Appendix. Part C of this Appendix contains a schematic overview of the coding process to visualize the relations between the different steps of the coding process. A. Codebook. The codebook in Table 4 contains the results of open and axial coding. The result of open coding are the codes in the second column of the table. The codebook also contains the frequency of every code and a quote for every code of an interviewee. Moreover, the codebook contains the results of axial coding in ‘’code groups’’ which are the result of analyzing the transcripts and placing the codes into sub-categories. Table 4 Codebook of the interviews with open and axial coding Code group (Sub-categories) Code (Concepts)
Definition Frequency Quotation
51 Managerial utilization of change paradoxes Current way of dealing: and-and perspective Both contradictory elements are included in the solution for the change paradox. 20 ‘’Most of the time we are trying to bring the contradictory elements together, with the goal of finding a balance instead of fulfilling one’s element.’’ (interview 2) Current utilization: ignoring the paradox The change paradox is
consciously ignored. 7 ‘’one of my bosses taught me that it is sometimes better to ignore the paradox because it will solve itself.’’ (interview 7)
Current utilization: not recognizing the paradox
The change paradox is
54
