Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Sustainable Management pp 131–161Cite as

Coping with Contradictions as Core Problem of Modern and Sustainability-Oriented Management Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1857 Accesses

Abstract

The preceding chapter showed that modern management has to cope with different and even logically contradictory rationalities. This coping assumes that contradictions are identified and accepted and that the logical forms of coping with contradictions are being deployed. Coping entails trade-offs. These turn out to be a great challenge for conventional decision-making processes and require a high tolerance of ambiguity from the decision-maker.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Argyris C (1988) “Crafting a theory of practice” – The case of organizational paradoxes. In: Quinn RE, Cameron KS (eds) Paradox and transformation – Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge, pp 255–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Attems R (1996) Es lebe der Widerspruch! In: Gutschelhofer A, Scheff J (eds) Paradoxes management. Widersprüche im Management – Management der Widersprüche. Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberg G, Coenenberg AG (1996) Betriebswirtschaftliche Entscheidungslehre, 7th edn. München

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens B (2009) Nachhaltiges Management und Theatralität – Inszenierung und Simulation als Instrumente der Widerspruchsbewältigung. Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Budner S (1962) Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. J Personal 30(1):29–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron SK (1986) Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizatonal effectiveness. Manag Sci 32(5):539–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Sawad A, Arnold J, Cohen L (2004) “Doublethink”: the prevalence and function of contradiction in accounts of organizational life. Hum Relations 57(9):1179–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans P, Doz Y (1992) Dualities. A paradigm for human resource and organizational development in complex multinationals. In: Pucik V, Tichy NM, Burnett CK (eds) Creating and Leading the competitive organization. New York, pp 85–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer K (2004) Aspekte einer empirisch fundierten betriebswirtschaftlichen Entscheidungslehre. Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontin M (1997) Das Management von Dilemmata: Erschließung neuer strategischer und organisationaler Potentiale. Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster L (2005) Werteausgleichende Führung. Überwindung des Spannungsverhältnisses zwischen Effektivität und Effizienz kreativitätsabhängiger Organisationen. Aachen

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel-Brunswik E (1949) Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. J Personal 18(1):108–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham A, Ribchester T (1995) Tolerance of ambiguity: a review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Curr Psychol Dev Learn Personal Social 14(3):179–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebert D (2000) Zwischen Freiheit und Reglementierung. Widersprüchlichkeiten als Motor inkrementalen und transformalen Wandels in Organisationen – eine Kritik des punctuated equilibrium-Modells. In: Schreyögg G (ed) Funktionswandel im Management: Wege jenseits der Ordnung. Berlin, pp 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebert D, Boerner S (1995) Manager im Dilemma: Abschied von der offenen Gesellschaft? Campus. Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasl F (1996) Dynamische Unternehmensentwicklung: wie Pionierbetriebe und Bürokratien zu Schlanken Unternehmen werden, 2nd edn. Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasl F (2004) Konfliktmanagement, 8th edn. Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm R (1999) Die Handhabung von Widersprüchen im Strategischen Management: eine evolutions- und entwicklungsorientierte Perspektive. Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 5, Volks- und Betriebswirtschaft, Bd. 2550. Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel GWF (1948) Wissenschaft der Logik. Sämtliche Werke, Bd. 4. Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitger B, Doujak A (2002) Change als Un:balanced Transformation – Ein Stück in 5 Akten. Organisationsentwicklung 21(1):4–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho D (2000) Dialectical thinking: neither eastern nor western. American Psychol 55(9):1064–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber N (2003) An experiential leadership approach for teaching tolerance for ambiguity. J Edu Bus 79(1):52–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsmann M (2003) Management im Orientierungsdilemma. Unternehmen zwischen Effizienz und Nachhaltigkeit. Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann H, Slovic P (1993) Charakteristika individueller Risikowahrnehmung. In: Bayerische Rück (ed) Risiko ist ein Konstrukt. München, pp 89–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungermann H, Pfister H-R, Fischer K (2005) Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine Einführung, 2nd edn. München

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaus G, Buhr M (eds) (1983) Marxistisch-leninistisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Reinbek bei Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce MF, Payne JW, Bettmann JR (1999) Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice. J Market Res 36(2):143–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1973) Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalität. Über die Funktion von Zwecken in sozialen Systemen. Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald AP (1970) Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: reliability and validity. Psychol Rep 26(3):791–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H (1989) Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of organization. New York, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Christ G (2001) Umweltmanagement. München

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Christ G (2003) Nachhaltigkeit und Effizienz. Theoretische Überlegungen zu einem dualen Erfolgsbegriff eines Managements von Umweltbeziehungen. In: Zabel M (ed) Theoretische Grundlagen und Ansätze einer nachhaltigen Umweltwirtschaft. Halle, pp 57–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger O (1995) Führungsdilemmata. In: Kieser A, Reber G, Wunderer R (eds) Handwörterbuch der Führung. Stuttgart, pp 533–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger O (2000) Dilemmata und Paradoxa im Managementprozess – Grenzen der Entscheidungsrationalität. In: Schreyögg G (ed) Funktionswandel im Management: Wege jenseits der Ordnung. Berlin, pp 173–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton RW (1975) Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. J Pers Assess 39(6):607–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otscheret E (1988) Ambivalenz. Geschichte und Interpretation der menschlichen Zwiespältigkeit. Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Pankau E (2002) Sozial-Ökonomische Allianzen zwischen Profit- und Nonprofit-Organisationen. Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascale RT (1990) Managing on the edge. How the smartest companies use conflict to stay ahead. New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Patzig G (1992) Platon. In: Hoerster N (ed) Klassiker des philosophischen Denkens. München, pp 9–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1972) Was ist Dialektik? In: Topitsch E (ed) Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Köln, pp 262–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Prisching M (1996) Die Effizienz der Ineffizienz: Paradoxien beim Organisationsmanagement, auf dem Arbeitsmarkt und bei der Mitarbeiterqualifikation. In: Gutschelhofer A, Scheff J (eds) Paradoxes Management. Widersprüche im Management – Management der Widersprüche. Wien, pp 257–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Regnet E (2001) Konfliktmanagement. Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis J (1997) Ambiguitätstoleranz – Beiträge zur Entwicklung eines Persönlichkeitskonstruktes. Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Remer A (2004) Management. System und Konzepte, 2nd edn. Bayreuth

    Google Scholar 

  • Remer A (2005) Organisation. Struktur und Prozess, 6th edn. Bayreuth

    Google Scholar 

  • Schettgen P (1993) Führung. In: Schorr A (ed) Handwörterbuch der Angewandten Psychologie. Bonn, pp 263–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Schirmer F, Luzens M-A (2003) Widerstand und Ambivalenz im Veränderungsprozess – am Beispiel eines Flexible-Office-Projektes. Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation 72(6): 316–323

    Google Scholar 

  • von Nitzsch R (2002) Entscheidungslehre. Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann H (2003) Das Unternehmen als dialektisches System. Leonberg

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LS ABWL, Nachhaltiges Management, Universität Bremen, Wilhelm-Herbst-Str. 12, 28359, Bremen, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Georg Müller-Christ

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Georg Müller-Christ
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Müller-Christ .

Further Reflection

Further Reflection

In a modern world with a plurality of interest in persons, in autonomies and intrinsic values of systems, inconsistencies, collisions and dilemmas seem to be the normal case. However, it is not easy to cope with these contradictions constructively. Many decision-making processes alter if inconsistencies are not being defined as conflicts but as logical contradictions. To recognize the difference between solvable conflicts and to-be-coped-with dilemmas requires great knowledge about social and organizational processes. And if dilemmatic decision-making processes result in trade-offs, the involved persons are expected to be prepared for the legitimacy of the unreachable.

Maybe you can detect the differences between conflicts and dilemmas and organize constructive legitimacy processes if you consider the following suggestions:

Semantics of contradiction:

  • Discuss the dealing with moral dilemmas with your fellow students. Outline decision-making situations in which you have to decide between two equally important values and frame the best argument for each pole.

  • Pick a book about conflict management and try to figure out the logical proximity of escalating conflicts and contradictions.

Forms of coping with contradictions:

  • In accordance with the statements of economics and politics the ecological, economical and social dimensions need to be related. Analyse the statements you find on the internet regarding indications for a constructive way of coping with contradictions. Collect statements that regard the relation between ecology, economy and society in a non-contradictory way. Try to find statements that ignore or negate contrariness as well.

Legitimacy of trade-offs:

  • Elaborate a dialogue of a young married couple about the decision whether to have a weekend relationship or to give up one of the remunerative jobs both have in order to live together. What are the non-achievements of each option and how can the couple cope with these non-achievements factually and emotionally?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller-Christ, G. (2011). Coping with Contradictions as Core Problem of Modern and Sustainability-Oriented Management Studies. In: Sustainable Management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19165-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation