Leadership paradoxes

Chapter 4 - Leading into the future

---

Previous page: Leadership dilemmas - Leadership paradoxes - End of chapter 4

---

Back to Book content or directly to Main Page

---

.

Welcome to the Leadership paradoxes page

.

A paradox is a concept or statement that unites or contradicts conflicting ideas and yet may be true. We also call it an apparent contradiction.

.

Core ideas

.

Etymology.

The word paradox is derived from the Greek “paradoxos” which is composed of the words “para” or “opposite” and “doxa” or “opinion”. A paradox is thus an “apparent contradiction”.

.

What is an oxymoron?

An oxymoron is a special kind of paradox that combines two words that contradict each other in a literal sense but fit in a figurative sense. It is an important figure of speech in literature. Examples of an oxymoron: Organised chaos, adult child.

.

---

.

Some leadership paradoxes

• Complexity leadership should be often more decisive AND more accepting of uncertainty and ambiguity
  • Our systems incentivise leaders who have the answers and promise us some future outcomes with a degree of certainty. But we should instead be inspired by the values that they stand by, while it is hard to make promises about specific future outcomes that nobody can know about. Leaders can still commit to radical learning in conditions of ambiguity
• We need more specialised knowledge in specific fields AND more generalists
  • We need them desperately while also need to bridge across contexts and tend to the interrelationships between ideas, departments, and worldviews
• Complexity is challenging, AND it is easier at the same time
  • Yes, complexity seems like a complicated subject to deal with, and yet as long as we drop some of our inadequate tools, it can actually appear easier - but it still needs much rigour.
• We are hopelessly biased in our perception of complexity, AND we have ancient, built-in ways to deal with it
  • It is easy to mistake being "biased" for being hopeless in the face of uncertainty. It turns out that ancient wisdom, time-tested heuristics, and grandma sayings are very robust in the face of the unknown.
• We need a clear vision of the future, AND we need adaptability and flexibility for a lot we cannot predict
• We need to rely more on rigorous scientific approaches, AND we need to recognise irreducible causal opacity
• We need centralised sense-making about certain key variables and weak signals, AND we need to distribute the capacity to make sense and decide locally
• We need more, better coherence, AND we need to acknowledge the generative importance of lack of coherence
  • We need better ways of aligning our sense of coherence around certain hypotheses about what is going on in the system at any given time. At the same time, we need to take the opportunity that lies in the moments of confusion: they can be times of proving us wrong, of innovation in the scientific field
• We need to rely on sound models more AND less at the same time. It is hard to make sense of this
  • Still, models are more critical in complexity to project potential scenarios. We need to bring more epistemic humility to their predictive powers as well. Use them for exploring the space of possibilities without taking any of them as the final 'truth' (unless they have a track record of sound predictions or a controllable environment).
• We need more experimentation at the edges, AND we need rigorous hypothesis testing alongside our experimental approach

.

Deep Dive

.

Dimensions

3 Dimensions each with two directions

Active dimension

Autonomy	<>	Participation
Human autonomy refers to the ability of a person to make their own decisions and act independently. This means they can think for themselves and act on their judgment and free will rather than being controlled (or influenced) by others. For example, a person with autonomy can make decisions about their life, what career to pursue, and where to live. They can also make decisions about actions, such as what to do or how to spend their time. Having autonomy is important because it allows people to make their own choices and live their lives in a way that is meaningful and fulfilling to them. It also helps people to develop their sense of self and become independent and self-sufficient.		Human participation refers to the involvement of people in activities or processes that affect their lives or communities. Taking part can include decision-making, development or activities. Participation is essential because it allows people to have a say in the things that affect them and to be involved in shaping their own lives and communities. It also helps to build a sense of community and belonging and can lead to greater understanding and cooperation. People can participate by volunteering their time or resources, joining organisations, speaking up and expressing their opinions and ideas, and working with others to achieve common goals.

.

Evaluative dimension

Connectedness	<>	Coherence
Connectedness refers to the state of being connected or related to something else. It can include participating in activities or processes and working with others. It is essential because it allows people to be a part of something bigger than themselves and contribute to the success of a group or community. Connectedness can refer to the sense of belonging or attachment to a group or community. It can also help people develop new skills, connect, and feel a sense of accomplishment and purpose.		Human coherence refers to being logical and consistent or fitting together in a way that makes sense. It can apply to many things, including ideas, arguments, and explanations. For example, a coherent argument is well-organized and follows a logical progression, with each point supporting the main idea and leading smoothly to the next. A cohesive explanation is clear and easy to understand and presents information logically. Coherence is essential because it helps people to understand and make sense of complex information and ideas. It also helps to ensure that communication is effective and that people can follow and understand the presented thoughts and ideas. Many factors can affect a person's coherence, including their level of education, language skills, and emotional state.

.

Relevance dimension

Competences	<>	Relevance
Competence refers to the ability to do something well or effectively. It can refer to a specific skill or knowledge, working well in a team, or solving problems. Competencies are essential because they allow people to perform tasks effectively and achieve goals. It can also help people to be more confident in their abilities and to feel more capable of taking on new challenges. People can develop many different types of competencies, which can vary depending on a person's interests, goals, and the requirements of their job or role in society. For example, competencies might include technical and personal skills, such as communicating effectively or working well with others. To develop competencies, people can engage in activities that challenge them and help them to learn new things, seek out opportunities to practice and improve their skills, and seek out education and training to help them learn new things.		Relevance refers to the relationship or connection between something and the context in which it is being considered. Something relevant is related or applicable to the situation or problem at hand and is, therefore, essential or valuable to consider. Relevance is essential because it helps people focus on the information or ideas most meaningful or valuable to them in a given context. It can help to save time and effort by allowing people to ignore or set aside information that is not relevant or useful to their current needs or goals.

.

---

.

Trust and responsibility

.

.

Self Determination Theory is the postulate that humans are active, growth-oriented organisms who are naturally inclined toward integration of their psychic elements into a unified sense of self and integration of themselves into larger social structures. As such, the natural processes such as intrinsic motivation, integration of extrinsic regulations, and movement toward well-being are theorized to operate optimally only to the extent that the nutriments are immediately present, or, alternatively, to the extent that the individual has sufficient inner resources to find or construct the necessary nourishment. Such processes would include, for example, the capacity to compartmentalize rather than integrate psychological structures, the tendency to withdraw concern for others and focus on oneself, or, in more extreme cases, to engage in psychological withdrawal or antisocial activity as compensatory motives for unfulfilled needs. (1)

Accordingly, innate psychological needs for competence, relatedness (connectedness), and autonomy concern the deep structure of the human psyche, for they refer to innate and life-span tendencies toward achieving effectiveness (relevance), connectedness (participation), and coherence. (1)

	Content source
(1)	The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior - Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan - Department of Psychology – University of Rochester

.

Defining trust

When do you trust your baker? More precise, when do you react on the proposition "am I your trusted bakery"?

• If he/she does not sell from a third party (cold baker): autonomy
• If he/she is friendly in the store: connectedness
• If he/she bakes delicious bread: competences

.

Defining resposibility

When/how do you show responsibility as a baker?

• If you actually participate in the action at the bakery
• If you show coherent behaviour in the action at the bakery
• If your behaviour is relevant to the situation

.

The trust paradox

Many leaders think they have to 'give' trust: “I give you my trust to do this or that”. This is unfortunately a paradoxical error.

You can only ask for trust.

We are well aware of this at administrative level, where the government asks parliament for confidence. Parliament then hands over responsibility for implementation to the government.

This is also true in business. Leaders must earn the trust of employees ("be their preferred baker") and can do this by giving responsibility to thier employees.

.

---

.

The 'Abilene Paradox'

On a hot summer day in a small town in west Texas, a family is sitting on a porch, enjoying some fresh cold tea, when the grandfather suggests they all take a ride to Abilene for dinner.

The family's father feels it’s a bad idea but is afraid to offer his opinion, so he foolishly says, “Sounds like a great idea to me.” Then everyone else chimes in with their enthusiasm for the drive, and before long, they are on the dirt highway headed for supper. When they return after a long, hot ride and some horrible food, the mother-in-law says, “That wasn’t a great trip.” Then her daughter adds, “I just went along because I wanted to keep the group happy.” The husband, who first supported the idea, says he only went because he didn’t want to disappoint anyone.

That little tale is known as the Abilene Paradox, first introduced by management expert Jerry B. Harvey in 1974. The paradox involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that his/her preferences run counter to the group's. Therefore, they do not raise any objections. A common phrase relating to the Abilene Paradox is a desire to not "rock the boat." It differs from “groupthink” because the Abilene Paradox is characterized by an inability to manage agreement.

.

---

.

Javons Paradox

Comming soon

.

---

.

Be aware

.

There is something quietly seductive in the contemporary obsession with “navigating paradox.” Faced with contradiction, we are told not to resolve, not to judge, not to choose—but to navigate. The term carries the reassuring aura of sophistication, as if complexity itself had finally absolved us from the burden of decision. Yet this language rests on a series of philosophical evasions.

First, it reifies what it fails to examine. Paradoxes are treated as ontological features of reality—immutable tensions to be "held"—while they are often equally epistemic and performative constructs, emerging from sociomaterial practice and ideological frames. One does not simply “navigate” paradox; one participates in its production.

Second, it replaces epistemology with posture. As Hegel knew, contradiction is not an invitation to elegant balance but to transformation. Hargrave makes this explicit: paradox and dialectics are not synonymous; the former tends toward equilibrium, the latter toward rupture and reconfiguration. To elevate “navigation” as method is to suppress the question of when conflict must be sharpened rather than softened. It is decisionism disguised as wisdom—without naming what the Good demands.

Third, it smuggles in an ethics it refuses to defend. “Balancing tensions” is not neutral; it privileges stability over justice, harmony over truth, and institutional continuity over political conflict. The rhetoric of both/and becomes, in practice, a normative commitment to equilibrium—one that neatly aligns with instrumental managerialism.

Fourth—and most tellingly—it depoliticises. What are presented as “paradoxes” are, in practice, asymmetries of power. Yet the language of navigation renders these dynamics curiously bloodless. Domination becomes “tension.” Conflict becomes “trade-off.” Incommensurable values become metrics. What disappears is the question of who decides—and who pays.

Finally, in practice, “navigating paradox” produces what it claims to transcend: stasis. The learning literature is unambiguous—dynamic equilibriums yield inertia, not transformation. What is required is movement through conflict, breakdown, reconstitution. “Navigation,” with its aesthetic of perpetual balancing, risks becoming a performative language for deferring precisely the courageous decisions on which transformation depends.

In this sense, the paradox discourse functions as a technology of power. It serves to “tame” contradiction—abstracting it, professionalising it, and rendering it innocuous. What was once a philosophical problem of truth, justice, and human becoming is now an MBA-sanctioned managerial competency. The result is a quiet inversion: the more we invoke paradox, the less we seem willing to confront it. Or perhaps more bluntly, “navigating paradox” is what we say when we have internalised the limits of the system—and no longer seek the Good.

Content source
Otti Voght

.