A few years ago, a friend of mine brought the idea of paradoxical leadership to my attention. I had never heard of it before and didn’t do a deep dive until a separate colleague mentioned it again. It turns out that my ignorance is a bit surprising, especially given my interest in discussing organizational dichotomies, corporate value combinations, and the values that emerging technologies may (or may not) fully capture.
What Is Paradoxical Leadership?
As defined by others, paradoxical leadership concerns “practices seeking creative, both-and solutions that can enable fast-paced, adaptable decision-making.” In trying to understand paradoxical leadership, researchers have offered frameworks to help us understand what it constitutes. But researchers aren’t the only ones interested in understanding paradoxical leadership. For example, a popular press book unpacks eight paradoxes associated with leadership: confidence and humility, vision and blind spots, visibility and invisibility, stubbornness and open-mindedness, personal and collective, teacher and learner, high standards and graciousness, and timely and timelessness. Others merge values into a single concept, such as a “humble hero” or “tech-savvy humanist.” Let’s be honest, the idea is catchy. Indeed, there is a whole community dedicated to paradoxical leadership.
Understanding everyday examples is a task that ChatGPT can also help us with. Consider some of the following paradoxes ChatGPT produced, and as a thought exercise, reflect on which value you tend to prioritize:
- Autonomy vs. Control
- Stability vs. Change
- Individual Needs vs. Collective Goals
- Results vs. Relationships
- Transparency vs. Discretion
- Speed vs. Deliberation
- Empowerment vs. Accountability
Which Value Is Most Important?
One of the challenges, in principle, is that people generally do not disagree with any one particular value. Nobody is advocating against the need for “community,” and most see the value in “individuality.” However, when it comes to a particular issue, a specific value often emerges. In a political context, for example, values such as “order” and “compassion” become salient when discussing immigration.
This topic of paradoxes and values reminds me of a debate form known as “Lincoln-Douglas” that is taught in US high schools. This particular method is a “values” debate, where students emphasize a particular value (such as the value of freedom of speech or the rule of law) that they believe ought to guide decision-making (such as whether civil disobedience is good for a society). Debaters then focus on their chosen value and argue that it is the correct value to uphold in a particular context. Every day, we are also called upon to make these value decisions: friendship or professionalism, celebration or productivity, patience or consequences.
Applying Paradoxes to Leadership
If Lincoln-Douglas is about debating which value is most relevant, paradoxical leadership is about embracing competing values with a both-and mindset. Indeed, the idea of paradoxical leadership emerged from a yin yang philosophy. For example, this may include “[controlling] important work issues, but [allowing] subordinates to handle details”—a balance between overseeing decisions and giving space for autonomy. Another study interviewed leaders and identified statements that served as indicators of paradoxical leadership, such as “strong top-down leadership combined with strong bottom-up leadership is the sweet spot.” Each of these examples makes plain what paradoxical leadership “looks like” in a managerial context, strategically capturing the benefits of multiple (seemingly contradictory) values.
Find the Best Combinations
Of course, not every value is a paradox. For example, “creativity” does not necessarily compete against “celebration” in the same way that “autonomy” and “control” naturally come into conflict with one another. On this point, we ought to find the best combinations, regardless of whether there is a paradox or not. Elsewhere, I’ve written about the importance of getting values paired correctly. We need to keep in mind values that really ought to come in combinations, a concept that was first introduced to me in a speech by Lynn Robbins. For example, if you believe in giving a subordinate responsibility, they may also require authority to complete their work and be held responsible for the outcomes of their decisions. As others have noted, “To be accountable for something without having the necessary authority is demoralizing, unproductive, and potentially leads to a toxic work environment.” Not unlike paradoxical leadership, this quote demonstrates that it is a good idea to promote values that can support, rather than undermine, one another.
The Outcomes of Paradoxical Leadership
While we should always be hesitant to draw definitive conclusions from data, research offers preliminary insights regarding the benefits of paradoxical leader behavior, including positive associations with followers’ task proficiency, adaptative behavior, and proactive behavior. Another study finds that a paradoxical mindset positively moderates the relationship between experienced tensions and in-role job performance and innovation. Of course, other studies on ambidextrous leadership (which is related to paradoxical leadership) report null findings, and some research shows a “double-edged sword” in this regard, so there needs to be more research conducted.
The First Step
I am excited about emerging theories on this topic and look forward to empirical data that deepens our understanding of how to navigate paradoxical situations. In the meantime, being aware of these paradoxes is the first step. In teaching students (and in my research), I argue that understanding value systems helps us see the truth more clearly by showing how a particular decision was reached. (For any amateur philosophers out there, think “axiology“.)
Leadership Essential Reads
Remember: Being conscious and even embracing paradoxical values can help you address the dynamic and ever-changing problems faced in your organization.
