Paradoxical Thinking: Maintaining Stability in Changing Environments Essay

pilferPost-recession business trends show companies that survive and continue to develop hand expeditious business models that respond speedily to external trade. Traditionally linear approaches to problem solving such clear-sighted goals models or cause and effectuate sentiment were standard in the employment during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Is cause and effect cerebration going to generate the type of results needed to survive with todays post-recession business kinetics? Complexities of the oeuvre today require Master Managers to think both creatively and critically to drive results. When leadinghip applies infatuated thinking supported by the Competing Values Framework, institutions have opportunities to thrive.Introduction / DefinitionChange and flexibility be seen as substantial components of successful organizations in turbulent environments with strong competition and may be dismantle more important in times of tumultuous crises. Organiza tions need to runfast to slip by up with the numerous and intensive changes taking place in their environments (Steinkellner and Czerny, 2010) Post-recession business trends prove that companies that survive, develop, and grow use agile business models that respond quickly to external changes. Traditionally linear approaches to problem solving such rational goals models or cause and effect thinking were standard in the workplace in the first 25 years of the twentieth century. Is this approach the most effective use of neckments resources today? Complexities of the workplace require Master Managers to think both creatively and critically to drive results. ill-advised thinking is the office to reverse, manipulate, combine, and synthesize opposites (Ravi, n.d.).What exactly is a inconclusive thinking? Its the act of considering two seemingly conflicting or contradictory concepts then harnessing the opposing forces to let on raw possibilities. Paradoxical thinking, if applied e ffectively, toilet produce innovative solutions to meet and possibly exceed organizational goals. While organizational leaders are expect to stabilize organisations, they are also challenged to adjust the existing structural arrangements and patterned behaviors and to ask frame-breaking questions. Managers must confide consistent messages and align strategy with structure, but must never allow the organization to settle into complacency. As soon as balance is achieved, it must be destroyed. Managers must have the cognitive complexity and behavioural flexibility that will allow them to shift from one paradigm to a nonher and thus to effectively manage paradoxes and optimize performance (Belasen, 1998).For example, managers want their organizations to be flexible and adaptive, yet integrated and stable. They want higher congenital efficiency and profitability and also higher employee commitment and morale. The art of managing and leading organizations today lies in embracement inc ompatible forces, preferably than choosing betwixt them. (Belasen,1998). The Competing Values Framework (CVF) is a powerful integrative model that is root in the contradictory criteria of effectiveness that describe managerial lead. Hence, mapping out the repertoire of leadership roles essential to dealing with paradoxes, and assessing and developing requisite managerial competencies are important strategic human resource goals. Assessing sure managerial competenciesand future organizational needs is an important strategic staffing function that can enable return managers to align organizational capabilities with business strategy. The CVF is a powerful theoretical construct with applications that feature supervisory roles and competencies, (Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., and McGrath, M. R., 1996). exercising of a company that demonstrates paradoxical thinkingI work for a global biotech company that develops rapid point-of-care diagnostics. Their products focus on cardiology, infectious disease, toxicology and diabetes. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) audited the company. The FDA found Quality system violations in manufacturing and issued the company a warning letter. In response to this external threat, the companys leadership went full throttle to defend the organization. During the most intense parts of our remediation efforts, the experience seemed chaotic, however with the new understanding of paradoxical thinking, its clear to me that leaderships directives were strategically managed. Cause and effect thinking was not complex enough to respond to the FDAs demands. The work climate immanently was intense as we about followed leaderships imagery. Our organizational shift moved from mainly a Compete quadrant focus, to combine all four quadrants of the Competing Values Framework (Collaborate, tame, Compete and Create).Most of our energy was understandably was expended between the Control and Create quadrants. The co mpanys management energized employees as new cross-functional teams emerged and strove to deliver on new internal and external campaigns to unify us globally. Leadership developed and effectively communicated a new vision shut in around shared values of meeting the FDAs requests, responding to the letter, and releasing quality product back on the market to the patients that needed them. The new shared-vision helped everyone focus on the new, while paradoxically repairing the old. Old processes were scrutinized, evaluated, challenged, and re-evaluated. We had to maintain tame of what we were doing correctly while paradoxically implementing new changes. Management also dealt with the economic paradox of not cosmos able to sell viable product while needing to spend on hiring new talent to research, repair, and touch on the findings in the warningletter.Although the company is still recovering, new internal processes for validating the manufacturing line were eventually implemented and product returned to market. Organizational change, obviously, is often imperative in response to emerging customer demands, new regulations, and uninfected competitive threats. But constant or sudden change is unsettling and destabilizing for companies and individuals alike. Just as human beings pass to freeze when confronted with too many new things in their livesa divorce, a house move, and a change of job, for exampleso will organizations overwhelmed by change resist and frustrate transformation-minded chief executives set on radically overturning the established order (Price, 2012).Can one learn paradoxical thinking?Yes, as tenacious as one is open to change and committed to learning new ways of thinking. Embracing the paradoxes can be uncomfortable its counterintuitive to stimulate change by focusing on boundaries and reckon when a company wants to stir up new ideas. Yet the act of trying to reconcile these tensions helps leaders keep their eyes on all their spinning pl ates and identify when interventions are needed to keep the organization lined up with its top priorities (Price, 2012). Acceptance involves viewing both sides of competing demands as simultaneously possible, even if they are inherently in conflict. By accepting paradoxical demands, leaders recognize them as an fortune and invitation to act, rather than as an obstacle (Smith, W.K., Besharov, M.L., Anke, Wessels, A.K., Chertok, M., A, 2012).Paradoxical thinking as a skill related to intelligence. Why is it least used? Paradoxical thinking breaks norms and pushes the limits of complex argument and logic. Being able to integrate opposing lines of reasoning to synthesize one common result is a high art. Paradoxical thinking is counter-intuitive and results of this thinking sum up change. Barriers to change include fear of mistakes or failure, intolerance of ambiguity, judging or being judged.How management and leadership can utilize paradoxical thinking to improve the organization On ce management has determined how to apply paradoxicalthinking, a shared vision needs to be created and conveyed to the organization to give employees a highroad to follow to reach collective goals. Once individuals grasp a common picture of a sought after future everyone can move towards that improved future-state in unison. A shared vision is a vision that many people are truly committed to, because it reflects their own personal vision. Shared vision is full of life for learning organizations because it provides the focus and energy for learning. (Senge, 1990). Within the Competitive Values Framework, management can take the opportunity to improve the organization by motivating employees, engaging them in new activities to improve performance and vantage them for contributions to change. Leadership can re-structure and revise business process for improved outcomes for customers products and services. Paradoxical thinking can literally re-invent the organization to compete in t he modern economy.Leadership must tell apart with the paradoxical relationship between stability and change to improve the organizations. Conventional managements approach to paradox are characterized by tendencies which encourage polarized, black/white, good/bad thinking. From an analytical perspective four different modes to cope with the paradoxical relationship between stability and change can be found to (1) accept the paradox, keep stability and change separate and use the paradox constructively, (2) separate the poles of the paradox to different locations or levels, (3) temporally separate stability and change, and (4) advance new conceptions through introducing new concepts or a new perspective.Compared with conventional modes, the paradox of stability and change may intertwine and instead of negating and displacing one another, they can mutually fortify each other in a process of renewal (Steinkellner, P.F., and Czerny, E. J., 2010).ConclusionCause and effect thinking hi nders mastery as its linear approach is not complex enough to delve into the dynamics of todays organizational environments. Using paradoxical thinking one can taking two seemingly inconsistent or contradictory concepts then harnessing the opposing forcesto possibly exceed organizational goals. Placing paradoxical thinking into the Competing Values Framework gives organizations the opportunity to explore new alternatives and innovate. Innovation is the key to growth in the business environment.ReferencesBelasen, A. T., 1998, Paradoxes and Leadership Roles. Retrieved fromhttp//www8.esc.edu/ESConline/across_esc/forumjournal.nsf/wholeshortlinks2/Leadership+RolesPrice, C., 2012, Senior executives will better balance people and priorities by embrace the paradoxes of organizational life. Retrieved fromhttp//www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/leadership_and_the_art_of_plate _spinningQuinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., and McGrath, M. R., 1996, Becoming a master manager A co mpetency framework. Retrieved from http//www8.esc.edu/ESConline/across_esc/forumjournal.nsf/wholeshortlinks2/Leadership+RolesRavi, K. R., Paradoxical Thinking. Retrieved fromhttp//www.krravi.com/paradoxicalthinking.pdfSenge, P., The Learning Organization. 1990 Retrieved fromhttp//infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/Smith, W.K., Besharov, M.L., Anke, Wessels, A.K., Chertok, M., A ParadoxicalLeadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs Challenges, Leadership Skills,and Pedagogical Tools for Managing Social and commercial Demands. Retrieved fromhttp//www.buec.udel.edu/smithw/Smith,%20Besharov,%20Wessels%20and%20Chertok_Social%20Enterpreneurship%20AMLE_2012.pdfSteinkellner, P.F., and Czerny, E. J., 2010, Educating Managers for a Paradox World Duality and Paradoxes in Management. Retrieved fromhttp//www.iff.ac.at/oe/media/documents/Paper_38_Steinkellner_Czerny.pdf