How Paradoxes Shape Members and the Member–Organization Relationship: An Identity Threat Perspective

Organizational life is replete with tensions in which opposite concepts or behaviors push and pull against one another in a clash of ideas or principles or actions. For example, managers must display decisiveness in addressing existing demands yet welcome doubt in enabling tomorrow’s innovations to navigate the well-known exploitation–exploration paradox. Employees need to fuel radical innovation and astutely manage the bottom line.

Organization scholars increasingly depict organizational tensions as paradoxes, arguing that paradoxes and the way organizations engage with them are key determinants of organizational success and survival. Organizational paradoxes are composed of contradictory yet interrelated elements that appear simultaneously and persist over time in organizational life.

Paradoxes intensify and surface, especially under conditions of change. In fact, during change, organizations are exposed to emerging logics that might challenge existing ones. Change requires creating a future distinct from the present, inciting conflict between current practices and future opportunities.

Existing studies typically center on responses to paradox, namely, on what organizations and their members do to address paradoxical tensions. Overall, there is now a rich literature on the doing of organizations and their members in an attempt to reconcile, manage, or navigate the paradoxes at play.

Whereas research has started to explore how individual members experience tensions, including the role of passion and emotions, we still miss an understanding of how paradoxes shape the being of organizations and their members, not least in terms of members’ sense of self and the member–organization relationship.

Research recognizes that paradoxes that emerge and escalate during transformational change can affect the organization and its members in profound and lasting ways. Paradoxes have the potential to shape not only members’ sense of self as professionals but also various facets of the member–organization relationship. In particular, paradoxes may shape members’ organizational identification, that is, the sense of oneness members feel with their organization.

As such, paradoxes may raise questions about members’ self-concept (who am I?) and organizational identity (who are we as an organization, and who should we be?). Discrepancies between expected and current organizational identity can drive a wedge between members’ sense of self and their sense of what the organization is, damaging their organizational identification. In this way, paradoxes may trigger members to reassess, explicitly or implicitly, the extent to which their organization still matches their own sense of who they are.

Paradoxes may trigger members to reassess, explicitly or implicitly, the extent to which their organization still matches their own sense of who they are. At one end of the spectrum, paradoxes might enhance members’ self-concept, increasing their organizational identification. At the other end of the spectrum, paradoxes might be experienced as identity threats that can disrupt members’ sense of oneness with the organization.

In this study, we explore how paradoxes shape the being of organizations and their members with a focus on identity and the member–organization relationship as exemplified by members’ organizational identification.

At this purpose, we study a transformational change in one of the largest public universities in Europe, which launched a business school that aimed to expand executive education in the context of prevailing public education. This setting was not only a revelatory case for our research purposes, but it also provided access to in-depth longitudinal information on the organization and its key actors. We gathered from January 2016 to March 2022, covering a period of 75 months.

Our process model highlights that the impact of paradoxes on members’ sense of self and organizational identification can differ substantially between members and within members over time. Members were most likely to disidentify when they saw paradoxes as interdependent and enduring, triggering individual efforts to avoid them. Conversely, members were most likely to identify more strongly in the face of paradoxes when they saw them as independent and temporary, triggering collective efforts to overcome them. Members who reduced or shifted their identification visibly disengaged from the change initiative or even left the organization, whereas those who identified more strongly stood together and demonstrated continued commitment to the change initiative.

Thus, at one end of the spectrum, paradoxes may erode members’ sense of oneness with their organization, be it by preventing, declining, or shifting members’ organizational identification, and lead members to contain their engagement, increasing the risk of the organization falling apart. At the other end of the spectrum, paradoxes may strengthen the bond between members and their organization, enhance members’ organizational identification, and lead members to stand together even more firmly than before. That said, these effects materialize only when members perceive the paradoxes as a personal threat to their professional identity. Otherwise, members’ identification and engagement may remain unaffected by the paradoxical dynamics in their organization.

Our theory and evidence alert leaders to the fact that members not only respond to paradoxes in their organization, but are also shaped by them, not least in terms of their professional identity and organizational identification. These effects can be profound and enduring with far-reaching implications for member engagement and retention. These insights might encourage leaders to focus their attention on helping members to attempt both: responding to paradoxes in the hope to reconcile them and coping with paradoxes in the understanding that many paradoxes will be immune to straightforward solutions and are, hence, likely to persist. Leaders, thus, face the dual challenge of enabling members to reestablish some equilibrium—even if only dissipative in nature—and to deal with enduring disequilibria.

Read the full article.

Authors at the Department of Management

ELISA VILLANI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

Academic disciplines: INNOVATION, KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER, ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Teaching areas: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

Research fields:  ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION

Elisa Villani is Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Bologna. Previously, she has been an Assistant Professor at the Free University of Bolzano. She has also been a Visiting Researcher at Imperial College Business School. She teaches Organizational Behavior at the master level. Her research interests lie in knowledge transfer, innovation, and entrepreneurship, focusing on organizational dynamics and processes. She has published in top journals like the Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, and Journal of Business Research.