Modern Management and Paradoxes

This essay delves into the concept of modern management, emphasizing the significance of paradoxes in decision-making processes. It discusses the dual nature of managerial decisions, the relationship between management and leadership, and the Competing Values Framework. The analysis highlights the challenges faced by modern organizations in balancing efficiency with adaptability, ultimately questioning the future direction of management practices.

Running head: MODERN MANAGEMENT 1
Modern Management
Name
Institution

MODERN MANAGEMENT 2
Modern Management
The etymology of paradox can be essentially traced to Plato’s Parmenides where the term
paradox was used to describe some of the philosophical ideas of Zeno of Elea. In relation,
paradox seems to be of more importance in aspects of our thinking systems. Technically,
research indicates that the recognition of ambiguities, unstated assumptions as well as
equivocations underlying paradoxes have consequently led to advances in fields such as science
and philosophy (Aidemark, 2009). Simply put, for this assignment, the term paradox simply
means an apparently true statement that leads to a logical self-contradiction or a situation that
seems to contradict common intuition. From an organizational life perspective, with particular
regards to managers, paradoxes are vital components in the day to day operations. Managers
make important decisions and hence the need to look for the right decisions.
On a relative scale, the manager can assume that the decision will be good for some and
bad for others at the same time. In this case, the nature of paradox is implicated since the
decision remains good and bad at the same time depending on the impact the decision creates.
Also, the modern management concept in business often contradicts its principles (Alajoutsijärvi,
Juusola & Siltaoja, 2015). A relevant example includes one of the main principles of profit
oriented companies which is the expansion of market share, sales, revenue, and profits. On the
other side, modern companies embed their principles on efficiency, organizational simplicity and
cost efficiency. Another important aspect of management paradox is the concept of outsourcing.
Outsourcing has many benefits, but it seems to lose its edge sometimes. Technically, once the
management feels the benefits from outsourcing, they settle on reducing head counts and
transferring activities as much as possible to the third party. The challenge, however, appears

MODERN MANAGEMENT 3
when the company outsources an activity that cannot be done in as much of a quality manner by
3PL.
Leadership on the other hand is categorized under the scope of management since it is
one of the essential functions of management in an era that faces increasing levels of ambiguity
and complexity. However, one primary difference between the two is that while managers set out
structures such as controlling, evaluation and staffing, leaders set directions majorly through
aligning and accessing employees (Cunha, Fortes, Gomes, Rego & Rodrigues, 2016). Effective
leadership styles also incorporate mentoring, nurturing, facilitating and risk taking. The two roles
may be used interchangeably, however, from a neutral perspective, the concept of management
entails far much more than what simply meets the eye.
It is also relatively important to examine the idea of Competing Values Framework which
is a theory developed from research conducted on the main indicators of effective organizations
(Cameron, 2009). The primary focus is embedded in two major dimensions that are
organizational focus and organizational preference for structure. In connection to the paradox
concept, organizations should be adaptable and flexible but at the same time should be stable and
controlled at the same time (Ibrahim & Reid, 2009).
Although the article has comprehensively analyzed the vital components of paradox and
modern management, it is important to examine why this is a problem today (Schad, Lewis,
Raisch & Smith, 2016). Technically, it is important to elaborately find answers to questions such
as: where is the modern management heading to? Why is it challenging to fight these situations?
Why do managers prefer 3PL surveys and reports on their employees as compared to speaking to
them? Relatively, the answers to these questions will act as a foundation to tentatively solve the
problem (Yu & Wu, 2009). The good thing is that rather than executing duties without thinking

MODERN MANAGEMENT 4
just as in cases of complaint corporative zombies, organizations understand the paradoxes of
modern management.

MODERN MANAGEMENT 5
References
Aidemark, J. (2009). Knowledge management paradoxes. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(1), 1-10.
Alajoutsijärvi, K., Juusola, K., & Siltaoja, M. (2015). The legitimacy paradox of business
schools: losing by gaining?. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 277-
291.
Cameron, K. S. (2009). An introduction to the competing values framework. Organizational
culture white paper. Haworth.
Cunha, M. P. E., Fortes, A., Gomes, E., Rego, A., & Rodrigues, F. (2016). Ambidextrous
leadership, paradox and contingency: evidence from Angola. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 1-26.
Ibrahim, F., & Reid, V. (2009). What is the value of knowledge management
practices?. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5).
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management
science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5-64.
Yu, T., & Wu, N. (2009). A review of study on the competing values framework. International
Journal of Business and Management, 4(7), 37.