Paradox, Spirals, Ambivalence: the New Language of Change and Pluralism

The twin foci of change and pluralism in this special issue clearly have extensive research traditions in their own right. Yet, the power of bringing them together is that their combination reveals rich interconnections between the two. Pluralism in ideas, among people, within organizations, and across industries is a crucial driver of change, even as that very change significantly alters pluralism. Several unanticipated themes emerge in the special issue. The most central is paradox. Paradox is the simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states, such as between innovation and efficiency, collaboration and competition, or new and old. Rather than compromising between the two in some sort of Goldilocks fantasy, vibrant organizations, groups, and individuals change by simultaneously holding the two states. This duality of coexisting tensions creates an edge of chaos, not a bland halfway point between one extreme and the other. The management of this duality hinges on exploring the tension in a creative way that captures both extremes, thereby capitalizing on the inherent pluralism within the duality. A second theme that emerges within the special topic forum is self-reinforcing spirals. Positive feedback loops emerge to drive people, groups, and organizations into spirals of increasing or decreasing pluralism and change. These loops can have consequences that occur at different points in time, and so intersect in unpredictable ways. A third theme is ambivalence. Pluralistic and changing organizations have both positive and negative (as well as intended and unintended) outcomes for employees and organizations. The result is a fundamental ambivalence about what is often called "innovation" and even progress. In contrast, several expected themes do not emerge. For example, punctuated equilibrium is not central within the issue. Perhaps the concept is too well known to capture the interest of researchers. Or perhaps conceptualizing change as a quantum leap from one frozen state to the next is being superseded by viewing it as having a more complicated, continuous scale distribution, such as an inverse power law. Similarly, traditional evolutionary models of variation, selection, and retention are not central to the issue. This could, of course, simply be a random event. But it also could signal that this view of pluralism and change as linear and devoid of emotional content is not compelling. Rather, the authors are favoring conceptions of change and pluralism that are more consistent with nonlinear notions like chaos and complexity, as opposed to a more Newtonian view of the world. In keeping with the focus of the special issue, the editors engaged in their own pluralism and change. We built an editorial team that is decidedly more diverse than those of most special issues. Rather than the de riguer two or three editors, ten editors nurtured this issue. In so doing, we not only increased the variance in perspectives but pragmatically shortened many of the review times. We also changed our own jobs. Instead of staying on the sidelines, we used the scale of our team as a way to heighten variety within the issue and to leverage the insights gained in the editorial process. Many of the editors, most of whom had never written together before, teamed up to write short essays that complement the articles. The result is a special issue that highlights four very compelling papers but also interweaves three short editorial team essays in a repeating rhythm of article/essay. In the first article, "Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Plural-