Paradoxical vs. Cause and Effect Thinking

I have been studying and researching many different aspects of business. I am currently reading about Paradoxical Thinking vs Cause and Effect Thinking and wanted to delve into the subject a little more. I have written my thoughts on the subject and would like to know yours.

In today’s competitive business world, companies strive to find the best method for management and leaders to achieve mastery. Cause and effect thinking and paradoxical thinking are two commonly used approaches in business management. Cause and effect has been the more traditionally widely accepted way of thinking about business strategy. The basics of cause and effect thinking are often ingrained in us as children, affecting the way we think about the world from an early age. As adults entering the working world, we apply this structure of thinking to our jobs and management strategies in the workplace. A traditional way of thinking, cause and effect asserts that a specific action will create a specific reaction. For example, if you drop the price of a particular item you are selling, the number of orders for that item will increase. While this type of thinking works for some things, it has its limits. This kind of thinking can prevent successful long-term strategizing for future goals. As mentioned in Becoming a Master Manager, “we tend not to notice that actions taken today can result in new problems that we will need to deal with several months (or years) down the line. We tend to believe that a problem addressed in one area of the organization has no consequences for other areas” (Quinn, 2015, p. 319). Because cause and effect thinking is rooted within us from an early age, developing new thinking habits can be difficult. Paradoxical thinking, unlike cause and effect thinking, necessitates creativity or thinking outside the box. This type of thinking pushes people to think in new ways that might not always come naturally. Thinking paradoxically pushes leaders to not only be adaptable and flexible but controlled and stable as well. Quinn cites Cameron and Lavine, who state that “it means that they must be willing to try to resolve the contradiction and to integrate seemingly opposite ideas or behaviors. It means maintaining standards and retaining control while at the same time being flexible and creative. It means being collaborative and open to new ideas while at the same time providing a vision that makes sense in the current environment. It means making the impossible possible” (Quinn, 2006, p. 320). Paradoxical thinking allows for conflict, encourages creativity in problem solving, fosters all ideas big or small, creates an environment that allows for good conflict and team support all the while maintaining the control and stability needed to run a company.

Learning paradoxical thinking is challenging. It can only be mastered by someone willing to accept and embrace change. Deep introspection and an understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses are necessary to fully engage in paradoxical thinking. Being able to see outside the box and push themselves into areas they never considered or areas that may be uncomfortable is necessary learning to effectively be comfortable with discomfort. Marianne Lewis and Gordon Dehler assert that “managing paradox requires reclaiming emotions and attributes that have been repressed, polarized, or projected elsewhere to explore contradictions and complexity. According to Bateson (1972), through self-reflection individuals may move to a higher level of abstraction where they may question and reframe a previously either/or mind-set” (Lewis & Dehler, 2000, pg. 712). In the right environment in which the working culture embraces paradoxical thinking, the opportunity is even greater. Such an environment can promote collaboration between organizational members who hold conflicting goals and values, such as members of a social enterprise who are strongly attached to the social mission and those who are committed to the financial performance of the organization. Achieving paradoxical thinking is a lifelong learning process that must be consistently worked at in order to master it.

Paradoxical thinking is the key to a successful company. In order to utilize paradoxical thinking, managers need to start with an open mind and be educated in paradoxical thinking processes. All employees need to be educated in this thought process. Managers and leaders need to set the example for their employees. They should provide helpful feedback encouraging paradoxical thinking and inspire an open dialogue about how to stay on track. Once all employees are on the same page, they will feel more encouraged to offer their opinions and feel invested in the company knowing that their input will be taken seriously, even when not directly falling under their job description. To master this way of thinking it has to be looked at as continuous learning process. These thoughts are elaborated on by Smith, Besharov, Wessels, and Chertok in their article “A Paradoxical Leadership Model for Social Entrepreneurs.” Smith et al. argue that “interpersonal skills of trust, openness, and cultural sensitivity can help leaders create a learning environment in which ideas are openly exchanged (Edmondson, 1999) and people feel comfortable raising challenging, yet important, information (Argyris, 1988)” (Smith et al., 2012, p. 472). Once everyone is on the same page, the company can begin to use this way of thinking to grow and succeed together in a more open dialogue. Creating this type of environment fosters creativity and innovation. With this creativity and innovation, the possibilities for anticipating changes in the industry, the invention of new products and inventive problem solving are endless.

Our world is constantly changing and so we must learn to adjust our way of doing things on a daily basis. In business, many factors contribute to change. Social, economic, political and technology changes influence so many aspects of everyday life. We have to be able to compete and adapt to any new ideas coming our way.

References.

Duhigg, C. (2012) The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. New York: Random House.

Lewis, M. W. & Dehler, G. E. (2000). Learning through paradox: A pedagogical strategy for exploring contradictions and complexity. Journal of Management Education, 24(6), pp. 708-725. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290002400604

Murphy, M. (2016, September 11). Ford is solving problems by getting all its employees to think like inventors. Quartz. Retrieved from https://qz.com/774651/ford-cars-are-innovative-because-employees-are-treated-like-inventors/

Naughton, K. (2018, April 26). Ford is about to abandon its American sedans. Bloomberg Hyperdrive. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-26/what-would-henry-think-ford-is-about-to-abandon-american-sedans

Quinn, R. E., Bright, D., Faerman, S., Thompson, M., McGrath, M. (2015). Becoming a master manager: A competing values approach, 6th edition. Wiley.

Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A paradoxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), pp. 463-478.

History of Autonomy Timeline (2016, September 10). Retrieved from https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/media-kits/2016/further-with-ford.html