Paradox Mindset: A Multilevel Framework

Theoretical Underpinning

Paradox Mindset as a Multilevel Phenomenon

Recent research has begun conceptualizing paradox mindset as a collective-, as distinct from an individual-level phenomenon, and one that occurs within organizations and teams (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Miron-Spektor et al., 2022; Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017). This means that not only individuals, but also teams and organizations can have a paradox mindset.

Among the few studies that explore paradox mindset beyond the individual level, Andriopoulos and Lewis's (2010) research refers to the notion of “a collective mindset of paradox” p. 117). These authors argue, based on empirical evidence, that management of paradoxes is a shared responsibility that occurs across the various organizational levels. At the organizational level, a collective paradox mindset is exemplified in embracing long-term adaptability as well as short-term survival via strategic decisions and diverse projects. At the group level, teams integrate diverse perspectives to foster innovation and efficiency. The authors call for future studies to explore how companies might develop and sustain paradox mindset throughout the organization.

More recent research suggests that a “both/and” mindset must be shared to be impactful. For instance, Miron-Spektor and Paletz (2017) found that, in a context of learning and innovation, teams develop a collective paradoxical frame through sensemaking processes that are influenced by both individual team members’ cognitions and behaviors and also by the interactions between them. The study suggests that collective paradox mindset may develop from a combination of individual cognitions and social interactions but does not explain the flows by which this might occur. Miron-Spektor et al.'s (2022) empirical study examined how teams adopt paradox mindset (frames) by embracing differences among members rather than denying conflicting perspectives. The study found creativity benefits when teams adopt paradoxical frames through engaging in idea elaboration, involving the integration of diverse ideas and perspectives. Navigating paradox, thus, can become a shared capability in which organizational members adopt a paradox mindset to jointly navigate tensions and complexities. There is also emerging research to show how an individual's paradox mindset can affect the paradox mindset of others. For example, a leader's paradox mindset can influence followers’ paradox mindset (Boemelburg et al., 2023).

Outside the paradox mindset research, organizational psychology and organizational behavior research have identified that organizations have mindsets. Organizational mindset is evidenced through norms, policies, practices and leadership messages that influence motivation and behavior of individuals and teams in the workplace (Canning et al., 2020; Carpini & Oc, 2022; Murphy & Reeves, 2019; Schneider & Pulakos, 2022). Furthermore, de Ruiter and Thomaes (2023) explore how our mindset beliefs, actions, and reactions are shaped by and interconnected to our interactions with others, suggesting formation of a team or collective mindset. They argue that mindsets are not fixed traits but emerge through real-life experiences and social contexts. This implies that mindsets, actions, and situations influence each other in a dynamic, ongoing way, rather than one simply causing the other. The study draws on concepts from systems thinking and enactivism to explain how mindsets and actions coevolve in daily life and social interactions (De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007; Varela et al., 1991).

Combining the notion of organizational mindset with the insights from paradox mindset research, we argue that team- and organization-level paradox mindset can be conceptualized and may be enacted and flow between levels, for example, via strategic narratives and organizational values that champion multiple perspectives.

Enacting a Paradox Mindset

Studies suggest that a paradox mindset serves as a tool to help employees not only cope with contradictory tensions, but also to leverage these tensions for growth (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). A paradox mindset recognizes paradoxes and also actively and intentionally responds to them in a way that embraces contradiction. It integrates clear purpose with tangible actions and behaviors, bridging thought, motivation, and practice.

The concept of enactment is helpful in shedding light on the links between (paradox) mindset and behavior. Unlike mere actions, enactment is an intentional process linking cognition and behavior. The theory of “enaction” (Varela et al., 2017) enriches this understanding by positing that cognition is inseparable from action. This deliberate nature of enactment is crucial for effectively navigating and leveraging paradoxes. Rather than reacting to a paradox and immediately proposing steps to manage it, enacting a paradox mindset allows for an intervening pause, acknowledgement and deep engagement with the paradox before responding. This process strengthens the connection between cognitive processes, individual actions, and the organizational environment, making enactment essential for navigating paradoxes effectively.

By enacting a paradox mindset individuals and organizations continuously reinterpret tensions in their environment, transforming conflicts into opportunities for innovation and growth. This process involves enacted sense-making, where individuals and organizations not only think about paradoxes but actively engage with them through deliberate practices. This engagement through practice fosters an adaptive environment where paradoxes drive innovative solutions and sustained growth. Boemelburg et al. (2023) reinforce this view by showing that paradox mindset is most effectively developed through behavioral engagement, with paradoxical leadership shaping mindset not just through cognitive framing but by encouraging followers to enact paradoxes through ambidextrous tasks.

An enacted paradox mindset is also an intentional effort that turns underlying attitudes into concrete behaviors and influences social practices and interactions. Individuals who adopt a paradox mindset intentionally frame contradictions, not as problems to be solved or eliminated, rather as opportunities for exploration, growth and innovation. This shift in perspective enables organizations to harness paradoxes as catalysts for progress and sustained innovation.

Insights into Multilevel Paradox Mindset Interactions From Organizational Learning Literature

Insights from organizational learning literature may shed light on our understanding of multilevel paradox mindset interactions. In particular, Crossan et al.'s (1999, 2011) framework on multilevel learning offers a useful and structured approach to multilevel processes and interactions. Their notion of feedback and feedforward interactions illustrate how learning can be transferred via top-down and bottom-up flows. “Feedback” refers to the transference of organizational learning to individuals and teams, whereas “feedforward” enables transference of learning from individuals to teams and to organization. More recent research identifies specific mechanisms and actors by which the learning flows between levels. Wiewiora et al. (2020) found a range of drivers that enabled the flow of learning via feedback and feed-forward directions. Examples from this study include leaders' use of position of power to restrict or promote individual ideas for organizational improvement (evidencing feed-forward flow of individual to organizational learning), or project managers, who by creating an environment for the team to voice opinions and share knowledge, help facilitate learning flow between individual and team, hence unlocking the feed-forward flow of individual to team learning. These examples illustrate how individual to team to organization-level flows occur and provide insights that may inform our understanding of multilevel flows that occur when navigating paradox.

These insights from the multilevel organizational learning literature help conceptualize paradox mindset interactions between the levels. This literature may also help in in better understanding of the interactions between the levels associated with a paradox mindset. Drawing on Crossan et al.’s (1999, 2011) notion of feedback and feedforward flows, our study examines the interplay between paradox mindset levels. In particular, our focus is on understanding how paradox mindset cascades from individual to team to the organization and back.

Notwithstanding these insights, few studies have explored paradox mindset across levels. The field lacks a nuanced understanding of organizational paradox mindset and how it informs effective responses to paradoxical tensions (Schad et al., 2016). Recent paradox research has enhanced the understanding of paradox mindset as a collective phenomenon (Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017, 2022) and as helpful in navigating paradoxes. Yet, a gap exists in the explanation of how paradox mindset occurs at each level and of the flows between levels (Schad et al., 2016). This study seeks to address this vital gap by examining paradox mindset practices at different levels of the organization, and the interactions between levels. We aim to contribute to the paradox mindset research by unpacking the paradox mindset phenomenon using the following research question: How is a paradox mindset evidenced at individual, team and organization levels, and how does it flow between levels?

Research Design

This research used an in-depth single case study approach to better understand and unpack how paradox mindset is practiced and flows across organization levels. Based on the exploratory nature of the study and guided by Rashid et al.'s (2019) case study method, an abductive approach was adopted. We drew from existing paradox studies to strengthen the theoretical aspect of the analysis and also allowed tentative findings to emerge from the data.

Research Setting

The study focuses on FinCo, an established mid-sized Australian superannuation fund, selected purposively because it was undergoing a significant transformation that offered an ideal context to study paradox mindset at multiple levels. Discussions with the CEO, prior to selecting the organization, had revealed her to have a paradox mindset. During those discussions she demonstrated awareness of the need to maintain core organizational values and strengths while at the same time showing appetite for organizational change and growth. She acknowledged the contradictory nature of these priorities and their impact through the organization.

The financial services sector in Australia was ideally suited to study the management of paradoxes because of the dynamic changes facing the industry and the strong environmental discontinuity, including an increasing focus on governance. The release of the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry in February 2019 (Hayne, 2019) further underscored the need for strategic realignment within the industry, including enhanced governance and member-focused initiatives. Key recommendations from the Commission, such as limitations on member acquisitions and stricter regulatory oversight, prompted reevaluation of FinCo's business model and operational strategies. The regulatory shifts, coupled with intensified competition and technological disruptions, drove an innovation strategy and an aggressive agenda aimed at digital expansion, innovation and product diversification. The organization recognized the imperative to nurture a culture of innovation and adaptability to meet evolving member expectations and industry dynamics.

The study spanned from April 2019 to May 2020, capturing a critical period of transition for FinCo. Table 1 summarizes staffing levels at study commencement, indicating that 15% of total permanent full time staff participated in this study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Study Participants and Data Collected.

Position	Staff (n)	Interviewees (n)	Interviewees (%)	Total minutes
Permanent	84	12	14%	2,034
Full time	79	12	15%
Part time	5	0
Fixed term	7	0
Full time	6	0
Part time	1	0
Casual	2	0
Total headcount	93
Contractor	4	0
Grand total	97	12	12%	2,034
Interview time by job level	Total	Interviewees (n)	Interviewees (%)
Board director	9	1	11%
Executive	8	3	38%
Senior leadership team (head of business/manager)	21	5	24%
technical it specialist or snr professional	14	1	7%
Senior officer or member/relationship specialist	10	2	20%
Other (finance, marketing, admin)	44	0	0
Tenure
Less than 1 year	1
1 to <3 years	4
3 to <5 years	3
5+ years	4
	12
Interview time by position				Minutes
Board			9%	193
Executive			23%	475
Manager			43%	870
Team member			24%	496
				2,034
Secondary data
Annual report financial years ending 2018				405 pages
Strategy documents—strategic priorities 2019–2022				30 pages
Organization chart and demographic groupings 2019
Examples of shareholder communications (corporate website)
Notes from attending and presenting to board				19 pages
Notes from attending team meetings, for example, weekly standups				5 pages
Project preparation, observations, notes and researcher reflections				96 pages

*Documents used to analyze and categorize the data (e.g., spreadsheets, tables, slides) are not included in the count.

Stability and Change Paradox at FinCo

The context of the study was the stability-change paradox that reflected the tension between preserving core values and a strong customer focus (stability) while simultaneously pursuing growth and efficiency (change). The stability-change paradox was evident across organizational-, team-, and individual levels, each presenting unique challenges.

At the organizational level, FinCo faced the challenge of balancing its long-standing tradition of high-quality customer service with the emerging need for future-oriented growth. The company's transformation demanded greater efficiencies and a new focus on growth while maintaining strong member relationships. This required not just operational changes but a cultural shift including preserving core values like customer service, while evolving the traditional service delivery approach. The stability-change paradox was also evidenced in FinCo's efforts to uphold customer-centricity by maintaining the intimacy and excellence of customer service, while also embracing growth and transformation. At the team level, the challenge was to harmonize collective efforts towards achieving growth targets while upholding the longstanding commitment to customer service excellence. Teams had to collaborate to integrate growth objectives with service quality, ensuring that neither aspect was compromised. For example, teams responsible for driving innovation and growth had to work closely with those focused on maintaining customer satisfaction and loyalty. At the individual level, employees integrated the evolving organizational priorities with their ongoing dedication to high-quality service. Conflicting key performance indicators (KPIs) reflected this tension, as employees were expected to support growth initiatives while continuing to prioritize member satisfaction.

Data Collection Method

Semi-structured interviews conducted between April 2019 and May 2020 were the primary source of data. Before fully launching our fieldwork, we conducted a quasi-pilot study to test interview questions with an initial set of participants. This led to a revised interview guide. In total, 36 interviews, each lasting 45 to 75 min, were conducted with 12 participants. We interviewed respondents from different hierarchical and functional levels of the organization, including executives, managers and nonmanagers (Table 2). The in-depth nature of the study and the focus on saturation of information were deemed more important than obtaining a large sample size (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006). Data saturation was deemed to occur when interviews produced little or no change to the emerging themes (Guest et al., 2006).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Comparisons Undertaken in Cross-Level Analysis of the Interviews.

Dimension	Individual	Across levels
Cross-sectional	(a)	(b)
	Individual participant profiles	Inventory of central issues within a level
	Initial codes and categories	Profile of level from two or more perspectives
	Inventory of provisional themes	Interactions between levels
		Typology and pattern of levels

Source. Adapted from Voglet al. (2018). Developing an analytical framework for multiple perspective, qualitative longitudinal interviews (MPQLI). International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1345149

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researcher. The interviews afforded insights into participants’ unique perspectives and interpretation of their own experience (Kvale, 1996). We took notes, made field observations and typed our reflections before, during and after each interview. These field observations helped us comprehend the context of the interview and background of the interviewee and pointed to factors of potential importance to our findings. We also gathered a variety of secondary data, including online archival data and internal corporate documents. This enhanced the robustness of our data and triangulated the information provided by the interviews. The research was approved by the Ethics Committee and participant consent was obtained before data collection began.

Data Analysis

Our analysis approach was abductive and involved integrating existing theories while remaining flexible enough to develop new insights and frameworks from the empirical and case analysis. The abductive process takes time for familiarization with the research evidence (Earl Rinehart, 2021). Having access to participants over three timeframes rather than a single instance allowed us to identify inconsistencies, potential biases and memory lapses. Data analysis commenced immediately after the first interview and continued throughout the study. Collection and analysis proceeded simultaneously and separately in iterative waves, allowing for adjustments and the testing of concepts and themes against subsequent data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).

In Step 1, interviews were manually transcribed and loaded into NVivo 11 software. This step included the lead researcher reading each transcript several times. The first reading was open-ended, with no framework and led to the identification of evidence of paradox mindset among participants. In Step 2, we systematically worked through the data line by line (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), segmenting and labeling the data (Creswell, 2009). In this open coding procedure we relied largely on participants’ terminology and made little attempt to synthesize themes or combine categories. In vivo codes served to authentically reflect participants’ experiences in enacting paradox mindset.

We then undertook a second round of coding, making connections between open codes, clustering them together and creating several overarching thematic categories. Simple visual aids, including Post-it notes^® and charts, assisted this process. The focus was on identifying recurring themes and developing a code tree and an inventory of central themes. Findings from the analysis supported evidence from the existing literature suggesting that paradox mindset occurs at different levels of the organization. Patterns of interactions also revealed how paradox mindset cascades across levels.

We grounded our research design in Klein and Kozlowski's (2000) approach which emphasizes that organizational phenomena often emerge from individual-level cognition and interaction and can be meaningfully explored through individual-level data. Following this guidance, we selected participants whose roles enabled them to observe and reflect on dynamics not only within their own work but also across teams and the broader organization. This referential strategy allowed us to examine how paradox was discussed and how paradox mindset was enacted across levels, without claiming to measure it at higher levels through aggregation. Our approach aligns with recent qualitative studies (e.g., Wiewiora, 2023; Wiewiora et al., 2020) that use individual interviews to explore multilevel phenomena, such as project learning and organizational tensions. It is worth noting that this study distinguishes between levels as applied to hierarchy (i.e., lower-level employees, mid-level management, senior leaders) and organization levels (i.e., individual, team, organization). As such, coding at “organization level” represents processes, structure, ways of doing things, collective organizational voice and routines; “team level” represents individuals’ accounts of their projects, teams and groups; and “individual level” refers to individual people, regardless of their role or level within the organizational hierarchy. For example, an individual-level perspective was captured through narratives that reflected the individual's personal account of how they experienced and responded to stability-change paradox (“You could almost look at it as two halves of the brain maybe, keeping tabs on this, but thinking forward, ahead” P10). The team level was captured through descriptions of joint experiences and actions, for example, “We take on everyone's ideas as valid, and no one really gets bothered if one idea isn’t taken on or another one is…” (P7). Attention was paid to capture instances where participants explained joint accounts such as “we,” “us,” “our,” “together.” The organization level was captured when reference was made to organizational practices and how these facilitate both stability and change, for example, “We’re slowly moving past the point where the organization is just focused on respecting the past … and starting to do the work of the future” (P2). Figure 1 illustrates a snapshot of the data-structuring technique, based on Gioia et al. (2013), as applied to the findings.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Snapshot of Data-Structuring Technique (Based on Gioia et al., 2013).

Following several iterations and discussions with the research team, concepts were grouped into a number of “second order” themes. This process resulted in the reduction of 100+ first-order categories to 18 s-order themes. The aim was to establish aggregate categories of meaning that would take the inquiry beyond coding and retrieval (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) and move the analysis beyond mere description toward explanation. We continued to iterate, moving back and forth between distilling and systematically combining the data while simultaneously seeking insights from reading the related literatures (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).

Coding included the observed initiation point of the paradox mindset (whether at the individual, team or organization level), and the direction of flows throughout the organization. To shed further light on the multilevel aspect and develop an in-depth understanding of the cross-level flows, we sought guidance from well-regarded method studies (Tuthill et al., 2020; Vogl et al., 2018). In theorizing from individual to team and organization level, we adopted a dual approach to data triangulation. Firstly, we gathered and compared individual perspectives focusing on individual experiences, perceptions, and attitudes toward paradox mindset at all organizational levels. Then, we triangulated these individual perspectives by comparing them with secondary data such as organizational reports, performance metrics, and cultural artifacts to construct a holistic picture of the organizational landscape and identify underlying patterns or trends. This data triangulation allowed us to get closer to the MLPM phenomenon and provided better understanding of it. Our prolonged data collection timeframe of 13 months was also valuable, in that it allowed us to capture changes, trends, and nuances within the organizational context that provided a more comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the evolving organizational level paradox mindset. Table 3 illustrates examples of paradox mindset at different organizational levels when navigating tensions underpinning the stability-change paradox.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Examples of Paradox Mindset at Different Organization Levels When Navigating Tensions Underpinning Stability-Change Paradox.

Organization level focus on both…
Past and future	We're slowly moving past the point where the organization is just focused on respecting the past … and starting to do the work of the future (P2)
Sales and service	When we talked about the people strategy and what does it really mean, that was definitely a function of ‘what are the competing objectives [sales and service] that we need to achieve?’ (P9)
Retention and acquisition	If you want to create programs of work and processes and tactics that are dealing with growing the overall portfolio member numbers, that means retaining everyone AND looking to acquire more people (P4)
Old and new culture	We are looking for new people in the organization that are not reflective of the old culture. We are looking for that new thinking coming in. … people that can be adaptive to change and work with ambiguity, and work in uncertainty as well. (P7)
Team level focus on both…
Risk-based and sales-based culture	The Risk Team is in fact embracing the duality of risk based and sales culture. And they have incorporated it into that planning, explicitly recognized in the planning, and are now taking it out into the frontline team. (P2)
Service (retention) and sales(acquisition)	We did used to be pretty myopic, like a single focus before. Whereas now we’re realizing there's different points of view, or different ways to do things, and it is possible to get both [Advisory and Sales] of them going. It's not just the one be all and end all. (P10)
Compliance and sales	Compliance and sales are two things that are almost opposite, often it's the team leader who is responsible for balancing that, and we all are as well, we have to do the right thing (P6)
Acquisition and retention of members	So I say, ‘how else could we do it [both]?’ and leave it with them. And they'll have a think about it, and they’ll come back from a problem solving point of view (P9)
Individual level focus on both
Strategic and operational, long- and short-term, big picture and detailed priorities	I'll try and work at the strategic level, and then if something looks wrong, I will do a very deep dive to understand it. You know, porpoise and then deep dive. I find that works pretty well at keeping your ability to balance the conflicting set of long-term, short-term, big picture, detail. (P2)
Acquisition and retention	I still say its educational. I mean, obviously, it's a sales role. And there is a mental side of making that shift. I think everyone here, you understand the business needs, but its balancing that up with servicing the members as well. (P11)
Strategic and employee focus	Consciously remanding myself “why” we're doing this. Changing both from a strategic perspective, but also that humanistic side (P3)
Internal and external perspectives	Read widely, talk to lots of people, understand as much as you can about what's going on. The thing with the investment industry, it has the brightest people in the world. So you'll go into a room, and you will talk to people, and you are “wow that's an interesting way.” But you'll go to an equally intelligent organization, talk about exactly the same subject and come with a completely different perspective. So then you'll have the two perspectives. And then the skill is, and the art is, to then blend those into what you want to position yourself. (P1)

The outcome of this process was a tentative multilevel paradox mindset framework that offers suggestions of relationships, connections and plausible theoretical associations.

Findings

Overview of the Findings

Three key findings emerged from the research. First, data provided evidence of paradox mindset occurring on individual, team, and organization levels. Second, data revealed six paradox mindset practices, two at each organizational levels: (a) acknowledging the paradox and (b) facilitating paradox mindset across the organization (at organization level), (c) joint sense-making and (d) working through paradox together (at team level), (e) meaning-making and (f) engaging with paradox (at individual level). There was also evidence to suggest that participants deliberately engaged in those practices. Third, the data revealed instances of interactions between the levels, which we labeled as scaling and disseminating. These interactions reveal how a paradox mindset at one level (e.g., individual) can cascade to other levels (e.g., team, organization). These findings combined led to the development of a novel multilevel paradox mindset framework (Figure 2) that illustrates intentional paradox mindset practices and flows between the levels.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Multilevel Paradox Mindset Framework.

Occurrence of Paradox Mindset at Individual, Team, and Organization Level

Data provided evidence that paradox mindset occurs at individual, team, and organization levels. Our data pointed that paradox mindset is underpinned by the notion of intent, whereby individuals, teams and organization intentionally engage with the paradox and take deliberate actions to navigate it. This intentionality was evident across all three levels of paradox mindset. At the individual level, paradox mindset was enacted in deliberate efforts by organizational members to accept the contradictions, and in their endeavors to pivot across multiple perspectives for a better understanding of them. At the team level, paradox mindset was revealed in teams’ deliberate seeking out of diverse interests and viewpoints. At the organization level, it was enacted in the organization deliberately taking an expansive view that reflected more holistic considerations. Table 4 provides examples of paradox mindset at different organization levels when navigating tensions underpinning the stability-change paradox. Drawing from the empirical insights, discussed below, we offer definitions of paradox mindset at individual, team and organization levels. We define team paradox mindset as the extent to which the team intentionally seeks out and embraces competing priorities. We define organization paradox mindset as the extent to which the organization welcomes “both/and” possibilities. At individual level, we add to the existing definition of a paradox mindset by Miron-Spektor et al.'s “the extent to which one is accepting of and energized by tensions” (2018, p. 26), by incorporating the notion of intentionality that frames paradox mindset in consistently active and deliberate rather than passive terms. Accordingly, we define individual level paradox mindset as the extent to which one is intentionally accepting of and energized by tensions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

MLPM Interactions: Representative Quotations.

Description	Interaction	Representative data
Disseminating
Organizational- and team-level efforts aimed at cascading paradox mindset to lower levels by raising awareness about the paradox and incorporating paradox mindset as an integral part of organizational fabric and norms	Organization–Team	The organization did a fantastic job of … holding both concepts and getting the right balance. And it was really through … saying ‘this is how we're going to do it … and everybody then had a shared understanding of how we were going to do it.” (P2)We’ve now earned the right to focus on people other than [legacy members]. We’ve collectively achieved some really great goals, focused on a key member segment that has a huge impact on the business and the bottom line of the business. And now that that is running in the background like it's just a reflex, we’ve now earned the right to start expanding that. We’re not going to ignore that, because that's still a very important segment, but now let's start looking at other equally important segments to complement the one that we’ve now got running perfectly. (P8)
	Organization–individual	Switching from that retention thought and servicing the high balance members, to planning things that are coming up … having my team thinking the same way and the organization thinking the same way. We are all pretty much on the same wavelength. (P11)We said, “This is the process (of getting new members), this is how many (both new and existing members) I want you to see, this is what we expect the results to be, that would be better." …Our strategy documents are two pages, not a lot to digest. “ If you ever get confused about what you're doing, go back to the two pages.”(P5)
	Team–individual	We've got a team meeting every month, and I've got six-weekly catch ups one-on-one, to talk about different things with each of my team. Those forums are where we can talk about those kinds of (contradictory) things, and actually document it. We do share stories. Typically, if there's something right away that's worth sharing, we'll send an email out. (P7)I made sure my team have close understanding of what's happening in other areas of the business, so I get them to listen in on phone calls through the Contact Center, hear what the calls are. … You can listen to recordings of phone calls as well, so the Contact Centre make those available; I get my team to do that. (P9)
Scaling
Individual- and team-level efforts to drive expansion of paradox mindset activities across the organization.	Individual–organization	Through collaboration we explain if something worked particularly well … Since we're trying new things [i.e. both commercial and service-oriented focus] and everyone's in the same boat, we can say, “This is something that worked for me.” People try it out. If it does work for them, they make that part of their routine or the way they do it. (P10)The Executive has a way of actually percolating that information up. Whether it's a new project, or whether it's a Scrum team coming together, just getting some people to give their thoughts. Whether it's [asking] … “How do we take some risk out of this process? How do we manage this process better?” … some of that bottom-up stuff. … So when we've got something [a contradiction] we need to solve, it's not just imposing a solution because the Executive thinks it's a great idea. It's “We're listening to you. What do you think we should be doing on this?” It's really about gathering that. (P1)
	Team–organization	The Omnichannel Team [works with the outsourced Innovation Hub and takes a more commercial focus] is probably where some of the bottom-up innovation is going to come from, around understanding our members and what data is telling us and moving it forward from there. (P5)It is a different way of thinking…We’ll try things, and if it doesn’t work, then “Okay, that didn't work. What can we take away from it?” Similarly, we don’t have to do away with all our old processes: “What have we been doing well that we can keep on doing in a new environment?” (P11)
	Individual–team	We just bounce ideas off each other: I’ll say, “This is something that I found worked” or if we have a weird question we come in and “Someone asked me this today”, “I had the same thing”, “Oh, how did you go about it?”, “This is what I said”, “I did it this way and this was the result” and people try it out. And they will come back in and go, “Remember we were talking about this, this came up for me and I said that, and it went by seamlessly”. (P10)Our team has been together for a while now … We take on everyone's ideas as valid, and no one really gets bothered if one idea isn’t taken on or another one is. Everyone could have a look at the way we do things now and say we’ve all had a say in how we do things differently or influence our processes. (P11)

Individual-Level Paradox Mindset Practices

At the individual level, a paradox mindset unfolded via the practice of meaning-making, defined as individual intent to develop awareness and understanding of the paradox, and the practice of engaging with paradox, described as individual intent to adopt both–and behaviors. Meaning-making practices included digging deeply to surface the paradox, considering multiple perspectives and timeframes and demonstrating curiosity about the paradox. For P2, meaning-making occurred when she sought a deeper understanding of the different attributes of the paradox that enabled reframing it in a new context:

It's a need to get underneath things, so that instead of just taking a surface attribute, you define what's really important within that attribute and have a way of reframing it so that you can deliver it in a different environment or with a different mechanism or in a different way. (P2)

Engaging with paradox involved individuals adopting behaviors aimed at considering and achieving both elements of the paradox. Analysis revealed practices including embracing ambiguity, using language intentionally to frame a nonbinary response and suppressing the urge to control timeframes or to reach a quick decision. The practice of embracing ambiguity was evident among participants who reported having to operate with at times incomplete, contradictory and vague information, particularly in regard to the emerging overall direction of the business, with many feeling that they were required to adapt to rapid change without a clear picture of what that change might bring. Long-term employees had been used to the stability offered by FinCo's default status as preferred provider to local government, and the freedom that default status offered to focus on member service, rather than on commercial considerations. The uncertainty of an ambiguous future was challenging for many. P4 describes how she navigates stability-change by focusing on the present moment, also highlighting that others may be less comfortable doing so:

All our plans are to 2022, when we might lose default status … So, there's people leaving already because they feel like, “I don’t know how long I really have at this company, so I might as well take something else now.” It's very unstable. I’m okay with it. I enjoy what I’m doing now; I’m just thinking about the present. (P4)

Individuals revealed how they engaged with paradox in their intentional use of language to frame a nonbinary response that creatively reframed a potentially negative situation as an opportunity and offered a “silver lining” perspective that would coexist with a seemingly contradictory tension. For example, for some individuals, stability could be maintained by a focus on enjoying their work in the present, despite the negative environment associated with significant redundancies and uncertainty, and were able to reframe the offshoring of the administration division to India as a performance-enhancing opportunity for the future:

We need to learn to view the offshore resources, even though they are an external vendor, as an extension of our own resources. We need to think about how we can best work to get the most benefit from having an onshore–offshore presence. And that might be things like time zones, and because they’re there in India, four-and-a-half hours behind … maybe there's some processes that they can do that conveniently fit in that time zone? (P3)

Team-Level Paradox Mindset Practices

At the team level, a paradox mindset unfolded through practices of joint sense-making, described as seeking to collectively interpret and develop shared understanding of the paradox, and working through paradox together, described as seeking to leverage team perspectives and to harness collective abilities to navigate paradox.

Data demonstrated that teams deliberately sought ways to jointly develop a collective understanding of the paradox by sharing convergent and divergent ideas, reinforcing consistent messages that cemented understanding about the paradox, and sharing stories that indicated conflicting priorities to be addressed. For P8, reinforcing a consistent message involved articulating the stability-change paradox through framing the new organizational direction in terms of the ideal member:

It's all focused around that ideal member … trying to help the team get on board with it. And repetition: the more we hear a certain thing or the more people in the business are thinking or talking a certain way, the easier it is, or the more likely it is for the rest of the team to jump on board with that. (P8)

Working through paradox together included engaging in collective problem-solving and decision-making about paradox. This was evidenced at FinCo in a number of ways, ranging from formal teaming and knowledge-sharing to informal brainstorming activities, creative thinking sprints and unstructured decision-making. Multidisciplinary team meetings were reported as helping legacy and new-formed teams work together to navigate competing priorities, using collaboration practices and mechanisms to gather contradictory ideas and to share them across the organization:

Everyone is working towards the same thing. We take on everyone's ideas as valid, and no one really gets bothered if one idea isn’t taken on or another one is … we’ve all had a say in how we do things differently or influence our processes. (P10)

Organization-Level Paradox Mindset Practices

At the organization level a paradox mindset unfolded via two practices: acknowledging the paradox, described as organizational intent to identify and articulate the paradox; and facilitating paradox mindset across the organization, described as deliberately establishing organizational structures, systems and culture that encourages a paradox mindset.

Acknowledging the paradox unfolded for example, via seeking out multiple perspectives to inform organizational understanding of the stability-change paradox, communicating balanced perspectives and developing a compelling narrative that combined the dual strategic initiatives. For example, P1 describes how the stability-change paradox was framed at FinCo: “We say, ‘It's one and the same thing: by delivering for [new member] and doing all the things we do, we are delivering for the default member [legacy member]’” (P1). P11 explained his understanding of this dual focus:

The (legacy retention) focus is obviously still the priority, but that's now expanded, and it's going to be a focus on acquisitions, so getting new members on board … The Board is meeting in April and there's going to be some more clear strategies. (P11)

Facilitating a paradox mindset involved intent to set up practices that supported a paradox mindset at the organization level. One way FinCo enabled this was by setting up cross-functional teams with representation from legacy and new employees:

We have what we call sales pods, so they’re cross-functional teams … There is no leader of that particular group; what there is, [is] three different teams from across the business; they have representation. Behind the scenes we have a person nominated to that group to just facilitate the discussion, to make sure [it] happens, because I just wasn’t comfortable that that would work totally by itself; but there is no leader, no captain of that, no team leader, no manager. And it is cross-functional, and everyone has slightly conflicting responsibilities or slightly conflicting KPIs, as you would get in an organization. Ultimately, they all contribute. (P5)

Interactions Between Individual, Team, and Organization Levels

Data revealed instances of top-down and bottom-up interactions between individual, team and organization levels when enacting paradox mindset, which we labeled disseminating and scaling. Examples are included in Table 4.

Disseminating occurred through organizational- and team-level intent to share and instill a paradox mindset approach more widely with others, in the hope that they too would adopt and use it. It involved information flows from organization to team and individual levels and from team to individuals. Disseminating was typically initiated by senior-level managers who shared a “both/and” narrative in an attempt to raise awareness about the stability-change paradox and communicate the organizational intent to consider both elements. CEO communications reflected the paradox mindset inherent in the broader organizational perspective and were described as “terrific” in helping the organization navigate stability and change:

The communication is terrific … The CEO was talking about acquisitions (change); we know that in April there is going to be an acquisition strategy [as well as a retention strategy]. So, therefore, we can start to get ahead of the game, “Ok, let's have a target on getting new members on board”. (P10)

Disseminating in our study also occurred through workshops and training, publication of corporate articles and digital resources, as well as building structures to facilitate knowledge transfer within and across teams and functions. These practices were focused at communicating and prioritizing both aspects of the paradox across levels. For example, P9 described how she shared information and ensured that her team had an understanding of the new strategic focus of the business:

I share most of the documents that I get with the team, talk through them. I make sure my team have close understanding of what's happening in other areas of the business, so I get them to listen in on phone calls through the Contact Centre … exposing them to other areas of the business that they don’t particularly work on … even showing them what the Risk and Safety and Compliance team are working on … We have to have a members’ view [stability of member services] as well as business understanding [change towards commercial focus] so that we can drive improvements or offer suggestions. (P9)

Disseminating also involved top-down intent to embed paradox mindset into the strategy, structures and processes of FinCo so that it became established as a norm within the organization. Continual reinforcement of key messages and values, and routinization of paradox behaviors into new practices, a paradox mindset became established as an integral part of the fabric of the organization. FinCo developed systems and processes that supported the dissemination of paradox mindset to individuals and teams. For example, the introduction of balanced scorecards helped alignment of competing priorities across multiple levels and functions contributing to cascading paradox mindset across the organization:

We’ve introduced balanced scorecards, so that in and of itself is a tool to get people to think about multiple things simultaneously. I’ve started a narrative around our two key challenges. One is costs, and the other is member retention or member growth, and so a lot of the narrative has “and” implicit in it anyway, because, as you say, we’ve got to reduce our costs, and we have to give our members the best experience possible. So that in itself, I think, automatically starts to engender the concept of an “and” mentality. (P2)

In this example the organizational-level scorecard helped teams and individuals to engage with paradoxical demands in their daily work. The scorecards served as a mechanism for translating high-level priorities into team and individual objectives, reinforcing the “both/and” logic across levels. By this reinforcement of paradox mindset within the daily rhythm of FinCo's operations and culture, new behaviors and mindsets aligned with navigating complexity and competing demands were supported.

Scaling interactions occurred when individual-level paradox mindset spread to team-level that, in turn, impacted organization-level paradox mindset enactment activities. Scaling interactions involved not only information sharing, but also joint interactions that enabled paradox mindset flows from the individual- to the team- and organization levels, and from the team- to the organization-level. For example, P3 described how his financial expertise and approach, initially developed for individual use, was adopted across teams and functions:

Some of the insights and the tools [I’ve] created, and the learnings off the back of that, have then spread out into the rest of the business, and we’ve become quite relied upon for a whole range of insights to where I think we are a bit of a go-to for some “what if” scenarios. (P3)

Scaling interactions at FinCo were also facilitated through leadership practices that encouraged a “bubble up of information” and insights from individuals and teams. P2 explained:

We develop teams cross-functionally [to get spread of old and new employee inputs] and what that allows is Front Office insights to bubble up through the Executive Team. There's probably a lot more just talking to people and walking the floor and trying to be engaged … and that helps as well ensure that you get that bubble up of information. (P2)

At FinCo, scaling arose when individuals externalized their interpretation of paradox, shared it with others, refined and iterated it within the team. P10 described how personal insights were translated into collective practice:

We just bounce ideas off each other: I’ll say, ‘This is something that I found worked’ … and people try it out. And they will come back in and go; Remember we were talking about this, this came up for me and I said that, and it went by seamlessly’. (P10)

Discussion of Findings

Our analysis demonstrated that paradox mindset occurs at individual, team and organization level. Adding to existing evidence of paradox mindset practices at individual level (Liu et al., 2020) and emerging evidence of team level paradox mindset (Miron-Spektor et al., 2022), we found new evidence of paradox mindset practices at all three levels. Our analysis also revealed that a paradox mindset flows between organization levels via scaling and disseminating interactions.

Bottom-up paradox mindset flows from individual to team and to organization via scaling interactions. Scaling takes place, for example, when an individual becomes aware of paradoxes in their environment and engages in meaning-making. The individual shares the outcome of their developing awareness with colleagues and together they engage in dialogue and group discussion that assist in further interpreting and joint sense-making. Scaling extends the paradox mindset further into the workplace, from team to organization, by exercising intent to embed it into organizational practices. This occurs through collective dialogue that leads to enhanced organization-wide acknowledgment and understanding of the paradox. Top-down paradox mindset flows from organization to team and to individual via disseminating interactions. Disseminating is typically initiated at the organization level. The organization collectively acknowledges the paradox and seeks to spread awareness of it throughout the organization. A paradox mindset flows to the team level through intentionally building collective understanding of the paradox and creating a shared narrative. The onward paradox mindset flow to the team and to individuals is facilitated by creating organizational structures and processes that enable prioritization of multiple conflicting priorities. For example, adjusting KPIs to accommodate competing priorities sends a signal to team and individuals that communicates the importance of dual priorities. Further dissemination to individuals occurs through reinforcing messages that express the dual nature of the paradox in such a way that individuals better understand it.

Theoretical Contributions

By introducing the MLPM framework, we seek to make the following contributions to the paradox mindset literature. First, we extend existing conceptualizations of paradox mindset to reveal its enactment at individual, team and organization levels. Second, we draw from multilevel learning literature and empirical data to unpack paradox mindset interactions between levels. Third, our study adds to the conceptualization of paradox mindset as an intentional, deliberate phenomenon in which actors enact their paradox mindset through a series of practices.

Our first contribution extends the existing research on paradox mindset by providing evidence of its multilevel nature illustrated in a framework, captured in Figure 2. We build on the existing paradox mindset research that has begun conceptualizing paradox mindset as a collective phenomenon, not restricted only to individuals (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2010; Miron-Spektor et al., 2022; Miron-Spektor & Paletz, 2017). Mirroring recent organizational psychology and organizational behavior studies that have framed mindset not only as an individual but also an organizational-level phenomenon (e.g., Canning et al., 2020; Carpini & Oc, 2022; Murphy & Reeves, 2019; Schneider & Pulakos, 2022), this study positions paradox mindset as a multilevel phenomenon. To support this conceptualization, we adopted a referential strategy (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), drawing on participants whose roles enabled them to reflect on dynamics across individual, team, and organizational levels. This interpretive approach aligns with recent qualitative studies (e.g., Wiewiora, 2023; Wiewiora et al., 2020) and allowed us to explore how paradox mindset is enacted and interpreted across levels, without claiming to measure it at each level. Multilevel research is rare in the paradox mindset and paradox management fields. Jarzabkowski et al. (2013) process model illustrates how paradoxes are nested within and cascade across levels. Similarly, our research demonstrates how paradox mindset unfolds on individual, team or organizational levels and how it cascades as interactions between the levels. Our framework is illustrated in Figure 2.

Our second contribution further adds to the multilevel understanding of paradox mindset by identifying top-down and bottom-up interactions between the levels. Insights from multilevel learning research, in particular the notion of feedback and feed-forward learning (Crossan et al., 1999, 2011; Hannah & Lester, 2009; Wiewiora et al., 2020), offered a useful lens which helped distill two multilevel interactions—disseminating and scaling. Disseminating involves efforts aimed at cascading paradox mindset from organization to team and to individual levels by raising awareness about the paradox across all levels. It also involves intent to share and build paradox mindset from individual to team and to organization level. Scaling helps spread individual-level paradox mindset enactment to team and organization levels. Scaling interactions also help embed paradox mindset into the organizational narrative so that it becomes established as a norm within the organization. These paradox mindset interactions are empirically grounded in our qualitative data and offer a more nuanced understanding of how it becomes embedded in organizational narratives and norms. To our knowledge, these more granular multilevel interactions have not yet been discussed explicitly in paradox research. Miron-Spektor and Paletz (2017, 2022) shed some light on the mechanisms that link individual with team paradox mindset, leading to enhanced team creativity. Our contribution expands upon this work to illustrate how paradox mindset flows across individual, team, and organizational levels. Understanding these flows and interactions is important to capitalize on collective insights that enhance not only individual, but also team and organizational performance.

Finally, we also offer a supporting insight into the role of intentionality in paradox mindset enactment, highlighting how deliberate practices reinforce engagement with paradoxes. Intentionality refers to the deliberate approach of recognizing and engaging with paradoxes rather than avoiding or dismissing them. Gaim et al. (2022) introduce the notion of “more-than” approach to paradox, as an extension of “both/and” and where competing demands are not merely accommodated, but rather actively leveraged in the search for novel and creative solutions. We build on this work, by highlighting that a paradox mindset is not merely about passively reacting to paradoxes, but also about intentionally engaging with them through both cognition and deliberate actions. The notion of intent is evidenced in the practices that participants deliberately engage in as they enact paradox mindset. These efforts shift the view of paradoxes being seen as barriers or logical puzzles to be solved to opportunities for thinking outside the box and catalysts for innovative solutions. While paradoxes can be navigated without a paradox mindset, our findings suggest that the absence of intent may limit effectiveness. This insight underscores the importance of proactive engagement in developing paradox capability across organizational levels.

Implications for Practice

Previous studies have tended to focus on definitions of paradox mindset without suggesting how to put it into practice. Our study sheds light on organization-wide practices and interactions by which a paradox mindset might be “scaled up” to incorporate multilevel interactions. It has implications for leaders, HR professionals, and organizational change practitioners facing paradoxes. It is important that practitioners understand that simplistic efforts to navigate organizational paradox are unlikely to be successful (Collings et al., 2021). Using a paradox mindset to navigate organizational paradoxes is a nuanced undertaking that unfolds (a) as practices within each level, (b) via interactions between levels, (c) as an intentional, ongoing effort.

Leaders will benefit from our findings that illustrate how individual-level paradox mindset can contribute to team and organizational level practices and vice versa. To do so they should acknowledge the interconnectedness of factors at different organizational levels rather than focusing on isolated elements. The MLPM framework provides a structured, and effective way to navigate paradoxical tensions. Leaders with a paradox mindset can effectively navigate organizational paradoxes themselves (Zheng et al., 2018) and also help their followers to engage in paradoxical behavior (Boemelburg et al., 2023). By actively implementing practices discussed in our paper leaders can drive the adoption of a paradox mindset throughout their organization. They must take a proactive role in fostering an environment where paradoxes are seen as catalysts for creative solutions at all levels. This can be done by modeling curiosity, adaptability and continuous improvement to actively promote the sharing of diverse perspectives and encourage input from all parts of the organization. By doing so, leaders can integrate individual-level paradox mindsets into broader organizational practices, thereby turning paradoxes into opportunities for innovation and growth.

HR professionals will benefit from deeper understanding of multilevel practices underpinning a paradox mindset, allowing prioritization of investment in recruiting for essential skills and capabilities, as well as ensuring a comprehensive approach to building a paradox-ready workforce. For example, HR functions can use the MLPM framework to guide efforts to recruit staff by seeking out candidates with diverse perspectives, varied experiences, and advanced cognitive skills at all levels in the organization. They must simultaneously focus on building the adaptive capabilities necessary to navigate paradoxical challenges. This includes developing training programs that foster a paradox mindset at all levels and that enhance employee abilities to thrive under conditions of paradox.

For organizational change practitioners, the framework provides a robust toolset to enhance agility and adaptability in managing the contradictory challenges associate with change, thus ensuring smoother transitions. Additionally, they can adopt it to promote a culture where paradoxes are leveraged as opportunities for innovation, driving more effective and sustainable organizational transformation.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

This study contributes to the emerging research into approaches for navigating multilevel paradox in organizations. Notwithstanding, a number of limitations offer opportunities for future research. The empirical setting of a single case from within the financial services sector may lead to questions about the generalizability of the study to different settings. A second limitation is associated with the study's relatively limited sample size. Despite scholarly assurance that the sample size is adequate (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006; Guest et al., 2006), it is possible that having a larger sample size may have resulted in different findings. These, and other limitations arising from reliance on participant self-report data and risk of researcher bias in interpreting the data were mitigated by evidence-based strategies aimed at building trustworthiness in the research as discussed in the analysis section.

We acknowledge the limitations of using only one level of data, wherein team- and organization-level insights were captured through descriptions of joint experiences, rather than from team or organization level data. This interpretive approach is consistent with referential strategies outlined by Klein and Kozlowski (2000), which support the use of individual-level data to explore higher-level phenomena when participants have insight into broader organizational dynamics. It also follows the example of other multilevel papers published in top-tier journals (e.g., Crossan et al., 1999; Hitt et al., 2007) that have similarly not used data from different levels in their discussion of multilevel phenomena. While a key implication of this research is that paradox mindset is a multilevel phenomenon requiring an integrated organization-wide approach, further exploration of interactions between the micro-, meso-, and macro levels across timeframes is noted as a rich vein for future research. In addition, future studies might also examine how paradox mindset interacts with organizational change processes, particularly in contexts marked by persistent stability-change tensions, with organizational change theories offering complementary perspectives for understanding these dynamics.

To conclude, this study provides an evidence-based picture of multilevel paradox mindset and describes how it was deployed in our case organization. It fills a gap in the literature on understanding the practices through which this multilevel phenomenon becomes enacted and offers propositions that can act as a foundation for future empirical work to further develop the construct. The study transcends the boundaries between disciplines and connects academic work and professional practice, presenting a framework that can allow organizations to better navigate the paradoxes they face across multiple organization levels.