Navigating organizational paradox with polarity mapping: A classic grounded theory study.

摘要

Polarities are interdependent and seemingly opposite pairs that need to coexist over time for success to occur (Johnson, 1992). These phenomena, such as stability::change, self::other, and plan::do, are an “inevitable, endemic, and perpetual” (Handy, 1994, p. 12) part of human life that can create anxiety for both individuals and organizations (Kegan, 1982; Smith & Berg, 1987). While there is ongoing interest in understanding organizational polarities, or paradox, most of the focus has been on telling about paradox and not on identifying ways to effectively address paradox (Lewis & Dehler, 2000). An exception is polarity mapping, a sensemaking process that helps systems outline paradox in a way that leads to action (Johnson, 1992).;This classic grounded theory study (Glaser, 1978) generated two unique yet interrelated theories. The first, Suffering Paradox, explains the experience of individuals in groups that approach paradox as they would any problematic condition. In this scenario, three variables (Preferencing, Attaching, and Othering) interact to produce a problem-solving mindset described as Either/Or-ing. This creates a Destructive Tension that negatively impacts results, relationships, and morale. The second theory, Navigating Paradox with Polarity Maps, explains the experience of groups that use polarity maps to deal with paradox. The group begins by Mapping the polarity, which leads to Divining and Synergizing. This combination elicits a problem-solving mindset called Both/And-ing, which sparks a Creative Tension that positively impacts results, relationships, and morale.;This study found that polarity maps, like other sensemaking maps, act as a bridge between theory and practice (Huff & Jenkins, 2002). This is promising for both scholars and practitioners. For scholars, the study illuminates the role of personal identity in Attaching and Othering, as well as the connection between adult development and Navigating Paradox. For practitioners, it demonstrates that polarity maps can be introduced at any point while Suffering Paradox to potentially minimize Destructive Tension and start Navigating towards Creative Tension. For both, this research suggests that when groups use polarity maps, they not only create more effective and sustainable solutions, but they also benefit from the dimensions of Creative Tension that are a byproduct of Navigating Paradox.;Key Words: Polarity, Paradox, Grounded Theory.