The Minder

I am fascinated by the presence of intense contradictions in organizations. It may be possible that the highest performing, most innovative organizations are the ones that can manage the greatest degree of internal paradox, and not spin out of control, or lose their centre.

In HBR’s current “The Contradictions That Drive Toyota’s Success,” for example, the authors observe that it is intense contradiction that fuels the success of the dogged innovator, the cost manager that places big bets, the frugal splurger, the hierarchical meritocracy. These ideas are very Japanese, and I have always thought that Japanese life and culture is made more interesting by its many simultaneous opposites: ancient and post-modern, tacky and stylish, faddish and timeless, loud and silent, totally over-stimulated and completely Zen.

And why wouldn’t this be a great way to run a company? Life is not black and white so why should we drive our organizational cultures, values systems and business practices into uniform mono-form? We all know how frustrating it is to work in or for organizations with the mono-form problem. Dominant paradigms wipe out innovation. Pervasive cultures create change-skeptics and the Company X Way becomes our way or the highway. Isn’t this the innovator’s dilemma that Clayton Christensen is all over?

I’m working now with the astonishing University of Waterloo on a brand strategy and boy-o-boy is this a place of paradox. The number of opposites which are simultaneously true in this institution is truly incredible. It must be really hard to manage. Just resisting the temptation to clean it all up and make it look the same must be tough. And what has it got them? To being perhaps the most innovative and enterprising university in Canada, raring to take on the world.

I suppose one way out of the paradox dilemma is through integrative thinking, or as Roger Martin would say, through the opposable mind. Would he and others - including George Stalk and David Pecaut who wrote in HBR 12 years ago about breaking compromises - have you drive up the middle of paradox by integrating or finding a third way? When it comes to managing organizations, I recommend resisting the temptation. Let difference reign; in the right places.

Question is, can paradox be present in your brand? Not so sure. Yes, your brand can represent complex ideas, and perhaps the brand experience can allow for some diversity, but I’m sticking to my unifying idea theory when it comes to brand. Even Toyota manages to unify its external image around a few very coherent ideas about innovation, reliability and the intelligence of their system – whether you are shopping for luxury, economy or carbon footprint.

So, let opposites flourish inside your organization if they allow a healthy mix of control and chaos, change and stasis, hubris and calm. But don’t let this seep out into a confused message of value to the outside world.