The ability to navigate conflicting demands, perspectives, and priorities with flexibility, openness, and sound judgment. It involves holding opposing ideas in tension, adapting behaviour across changing situations, and making balanced decisions without rushing to simplistic solutions.
The dealing with paradox visual above summarises five practical behaviours that help leaders navigate competing demands without resorting to simplistic either/or choices: recognising when opposing priorities are both important, finding ways to benefit from both sides of a tension, noticing when one perspective or strength becomes dominant, adapting leadership behaviour while maintaining consistent principles, and continually adjusting the balance as circumstances change. Together, these behaviours help leaders work constructively with persistent tensions, make more balanced decisions and harness the benefits of apparently contradictory approaches.
“The world is full of paradoxes and life is full of opposites. The art is to embrace the opposites, accommodate the paradoxes and live with a smile.” Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Why dealing with paradox matters
Most of the genuinely hard calls a leader faces aren’t problems with a correct answer waiting to be found, they’re paradoxes: two legitimate needs that both matter and can’t be fully satisfied at the same time. Stability and change, autonomy and accountability, speed and thoroughness, all of these are permanent tensions to be managed continuously, not puzzles to be solved once and filed away.
Leaders who don’t recognise this keep trying to resolve paradoxes the way they’d resolve problems, by picking the side that feels most defensible and moving on, which works right up until the neglected side of the tension resurfaces as a consequence. The team experiences this as a leader who lurches between extremes, decisive one quarter and collaborative the next, rather than one who’s actually holding a consistent, considered position.
The leaders who handle this well aren’t the ones who’ve found a way to make the tension disappear, they’ve simply gotten comfortable with the fact that it won’t, and built the judgment to know which side needs more weight in any given moment without ever fully abandoning the other.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald
What good and bad dealing with paradox looks like
| Bad | Good |
|---|---|
| Searches for the one correct answer to a tension that doesn’t actually have one. | Recognises the situation as an ongoing trade-off to be managed, not a problem waiting for a final solution. |
| Collapses to one side of a conflicting pair of truths to relieve the discomfort of holding both. | Treats the discomfort of holding two true things at once as a signal of genuine paradox, not a problem to escape. |
| Makes a trade-off privately and announces only the decision. | Explains the tension itself to the people affected, not just the call that was made. |
| Applies the same fixed approach to every stakeholder or situation regardless of what it actually calls for. | Lets the specific situation, not habit or personal comfort, determine which side of a tension gets more weight. |
| Keeps leaning on a strength that used to work, without noticing the situation now calls for its opposite. | Actively checks whether a reliable strength still fits the current situation, or has become a liability without anyone noticing. |
| Freezes or steps back from a decision when a sudden change makes the right call unclear. | Makes a provisional call under uncertainty and stays available to revise it as clarity improves. |
| Pushes a decision through and treats dissent as a delay to be overcome. | Treats dissent as a source of information about the side of the tension currently being underweighted. |
| Assumes the same trade-off that worked in a past situation will automatically work in the next one. | Re-evaluates each new tension on its own terms, since which side deserves more weight shifts with context. |
“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.” Niels Bohr
Barriers to dealing with paradox
Abdication in moments of change: Some leaders freeze or step back from their responsibility when confronted with a sudden shift in circumstances, unable or unwilling to act while the situation is still unclear. The inaction itself becomes a decision, usually the worst available one, since it lets the situation continue to develop without anyone actually steering it.
Lack of emotional intelligence: Leaders who struggle to read what people are actually experiencing, beyond what they’re saying, find themselves negotiating a paradox blind to half the information that would help them navigate it. Empathy isn’t a soft addition to this skill, it’s often the mechanism that reveals which side of a tension actually matters most to the people affected by it.
Rigidity across mindset, values, and behaviour: Some leaders default to one fixed approach, one interpretation of their values, one behavioural mode, and apply it regardless of what the specific situation actually calls for, whether that shows up as refusing to reconsider a firmly held conviction, treating every stakeholder identically, or simply being unable to shift how they operate as circumstances change. Whatever form it takes, the underlying problem is the same: an unwillingness to let the situation, rather than the habit, determine the response.
Dominant leadership style: Leaders who push their own view through by sheer force of will can look decisive in the short term, but they alienate the very people whose dissent would have surfaced the other side of the paradox worth considering. Paradoxes rarely get resolved well by a leader who has already ensured nobody will disagree with them.
Over-reliance on strengths: A strength that has reliably worked in the past can become a liability the moment the situation actually calls for its opposite, decisiveness that becomes recklessness, caution that becomes paralysis. Leaders rarely notice the shift in real time, because the strength still feels like the same asset it always was.
Collapsing to a single track under pressure: Dealing with paradox requires holding two or more valid but conflicting considerations in mind at once, and a fast, unilateral call is often just what that collapse looks like in practice, rather than a considered decision. The unresolved side of the tension doesn’t disappear when it gets excluded, it resurfaces later as a consequence nobody planned for.
Treating tension as something to be resolved rather than managed: A genuine problem has a correct answer waiting to be found; a genuine paradox has two legitimate, permanently competing needs that have to be continuously balanced. The discomfort of believing two conflicting things at once pushes many leaders to prematurely pick a side just for relief, and to mistake that relief for having actually fixed something.
Resolving the tension privately instead of surfacing it with the team: A leader who weighs a paradox in their own head and simply announces the resulting trade-off can look inconsistent or arbitrary to a team that never saw the tension being managed. Making the paradox visible, rather than resolving it invisibly, is often what makes a difficult trade-off land as reasonable rather than erratic.
Letting one bad experience set a permanent bias: A leader who once got burned by being too consultative, or too unilateral, can overcorrect permanently toward the opposite pole, treating a single past experience as a lesson about paradox management in general rather than about that one specific situation. Every new tension then gets read through the lens of the old wound instead of its own actual circumstances.
Offloading the paradox instead of owning it: Pushing a genuinely difficult tension up to a committee, sideways to a peer, or down to a direct report can look like appropriate delegation, but it’s sometimes just a way of avoiding the discomfort of holding the tension personally. The capacity to manage paradox never gets built if the leader keeps arranging for someone else to do the actual holding.
“If your emotional abilities aren’t in hand, if you don’t have self-awareness, if you are not able to manage your distressing emotions, if you can’t have empathy and have effective relationships, then no matter how smart you are, you are not going to get very far.” Daniel Goleman
Enablers of dealing with paradox
Master gear-shifting: Leaders must learn to transition seamlessly between diverse situations and roles. Build your capacity to work flexibly and adapt to scenarios that confront you, treating range itself as a skill worth deliberately developing rather than something you either have or don’t.
Embrace opposing behaviours: Finding balance entails combining seemingly contradictory behaviours. Leaders must embrace paradoxical actions to achieve optimal results, whether delivering tough messages with compassion or being playful yet firm.
Embrace someone else’s vision: Sometimes, you must champion a vision or strategy that contradicts your personal beliefs. Embracing this paradox requires aligning oneself with the organisation’s goals while managing personal perspectives professionally.
Navigate tough transitions: Identify which specific transitions, such as shifting between confrontation and collaboration, are hardest for you personally, rather than assuming all shifts are equally difficult, and rehearse a strategy for those exact moments before you’re in them.
Embrace variety: Stepping out of one’s comfort zone and embracing diversity in tasks can foster adaptability. By taking calculated risks and engaging in varied experiences, one can broaden one’s skill set.
Reset – become a novice: Embracing the role of a novice in unfamiliar situations can foster humility and enhance adaptability. Fresh thinking often comes from a “beginner’s mind”.
Manage instant responses: Controlling immediate reactions to shifts and discontinuities is crucial. When two things you believe both feel true but seem to conflict, resist the urge to immediately collapse to one side just to relieve the discomfort, that discomfort is often a sign you’re facing a genuine paradox rather than a false choice. Pause to consider multiple responses before reacting.
Explore options: Using mental rehearsal to explore different approaches and scenarios can enhance decision-making flexibility and prepare you for conflicting outcomes.
Balance your strengths: Recognising and managing overused strengths is helpful so that you can avoid becoming overly reliant on specific traits or tendencies.
Study the experts: Learning from individuals skilled at dealing with paradox, whether in leadership roles or everyday life, can provide valuable insights into how to hold tension constructively.
Name the tension as a tension, not a problem to solve: When you notice yourself hunting for the one right answer to a genuinely paradoxical situation, pause and ask whether this is actually a permanent trade-off to be managed rather than a puzzle with a final solution. Recognising which kind of challenge you’re facing changes what a good outcome even looks like.
Make the trade-off visible to the people affected by it: When you make a call that favours one side of a genuine tension, explain the tension itself to the team, not just the decision. A visible trade-off reads as considered judgment; an invisible one reads as inconsistency.
Separate the instinct from its source: Before letting a strong pull toward one side of a decision run its course, whether that pull comes from a bad past experience or from wanting someone else to hold the discomfort instead of you, ask what’s actually driving it. A prior scar and a preference for delegating are both understandable, but neither is the same as this situation actually calling for that particular response.
“Let go of certainty. The opposite isn’t uncertainty. It’s openness, curiosity and a willingness to embrace paradox, rather than choose up sides.” Tony Schwartz
Reflection questions for dealing with paradox
1. How comfortable are you with shifting gears between different roles and situations? Can you recall recent instances where you successfully transitioned between contradictory demands?
2. Reflect on your ability to embrace opposing perspectives. How do you navigate the tension between these perspectives now? How could you get even better at this?
3. Consider your strengths as a leader. Do you tend to overuse certain strengths, and if so, how does this impact your ability to navigate paradoxes?
4. How aligned are you with the overarching vision of your organisation, even when it contradicts your personal beliefs? How do you maintain professionalism in these moments?
5. Identify the toughest transitions you have faced in your leadership role. What strategies could you employ to navigate them more effectively in the future?
6. Explore your comfort level with stepping out of your comfort zone. How does seeking diverse experiences contribute to your capacity to deal with paradoxes?
7. Reflect on individuals you admire for their ability to navigate transitions. What key principles do you observe in their approach that you might incorporate?
8. Can you recall a recent experience where adopting a beginner’s mindset enhanced your ability to navigate a complex or paradoxical problem?
9. How do you engage in mental rehearsal to envision diverse approaches? Can you identify areas where practising this skill could enhance your flexibility?
10. Do you have a sparring or thinking partner who challenges your assumptions? If you do not have somebody, who could you choose to help you grow in this area?
“God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Reinhold Niebuhr
Micro practices for dealing with paradox
1. Name it as a tension, not a problem: Next time you catch yourself hunting for the “right answer” to a genuinely conflicting situation, pause and ask whether it’s actually a trade-off to manage rather than a puzzle to solve. Write down both sides explicitly.
2. Sit with the discomfort for one day: Next time two things you believe both feel true but seem to conflict, delay resolving it for 24 hours instead of collapsing to one side immediately. Notice what the discomfort itself is telling you.
3. Explain the trade-off, not just the decision: Next time you make a call that favours one side of a real tension, tell the people affected what the tension actually was, not just what you decided.
4. Audit a reliable strength: Pick one strength you lean on often, and ask honestly whether the current situation actually calls for its opposite. Notice if you’re applying it out of habit rather than genuine fit.
5. Identify your hardest transition: Name the specific shift, between two modes, styles, or postures, that you personally find hardest to make, and rehearse it before you’re in the middle of needing it.
6. Ask what the dissent is protecting: Next time someone pushes back on a decision you’ve made, ask what value or consideration they might be protecting, rather than treating the pushback as resistance to be managed past.
“Investing in small changes, in incremental steps, is the smart approach to getting better.” Doug Conant
Explore related leadership resources
To further develop this capability, examine how it intersects with other core leadership dimensions across the libraries:
Leadership library:
- Openness: Foster an environment where conflicting ideas can coexist, allowing for a more nuanced exploration of complex organisational challenges.
- Questions (Asking good): Use inquiry to probe the tensions between opposing demands, uncovering the underlying value in both sides of a paradox.
- Sensemaking: Help your team navigate contradictions by providing a way of exploring complexity without oversimplifying the situation.
- Decision Making Quality: Improve the robustness of your choices by integrating competing priorities into a balanced, longer-term strategy.
Supporting libraries
- Adaptability (Traits): Leverage your natural flexibility to shift your approach as different sides of a paradox become more or less prominent.
- Ambiguity tolerance (Agility): Draw on your internal capacity to remain effective and composed when there is no clear-cut “right” answer.
- Mental model updating (Agility): Proactively evolve your thinking to accommodate new, seemingly contradictory information as the organisational landscape shifts.
- Perspective agility (Agility): Move fluidly between different mental lenses to appreciate the validity of opposing viewpoints simultaneously.
Continue exploring: Return to the Leadership Library to view the full directory of competencies and resources.