Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Xin LiORCiD
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
The literature on organizational paradoxes emphasizes the importance of both/and thinking and action. Yet, while often treated as a unitary concept, both/and has been interpreted and operationalized in diverse ways—such as ambidexterity, transcendence, Yin-Yang balancing, and the Zhong-Yong middle way. To enhance conceptual clarity and coherence, this paper decomposes the notion of both/and and identifies generic strategies for simultaneously engaging paradoxical opposites. I begin by reviewing individual responses and prior classifications of responses to paradoxical tensions, which reveals five distinct responses beyond either/or logics. Building on these, I develop a typology that specifies and relates five variants of both/and thinking. These are organized into five ideal types—superficial Either-And, multiversal Both-Or, ambivalent Both-And, reconciliatory Both-Nor, and transcendent Neither-And—collectively forming the acronym SMART. I illustrate the application of the SMART framework by analyzing how organizations navigate the profitability vs. responsibility tension, a paradox central to modern business practice. I conclude the paper by identifying the limitations of the present study and avenues for future research.
Author(s): Li X
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Management
Year: 2025
Pages: epub ahead of print
Online publication date: 15/11/2025
Acceptance date: 13/09/2025
Date deposited: 13/09/2025
ISSN (print): 0149-2063
ISSN (electronic): 1557-1211
Publisher: Sage Publications Ltd
URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063251383806
DOI: 10.1177/01492063251383806
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
