Paradox theory is a rich vein of research in management thinking that studies how organisations navigate seemingly contradictory and interrelated demands. These demands - for example, whether to invest in new innovation or exploit existing intellectual property - could be seen as requiring trade-offs or compromises. But what paradox theory seeks to show is that they should be seen as both/and scenarios, and that the organisation is stronger if it holds these two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, rather than choosing between one or the other.

In their landmark article on the topic, Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis (1) outlined four categories of paradox that typically affect every company.

Learning paradoxes: this is the tension between exploration and exploitation. Companies want to do new things and innovate, but this carries risks. The safer option is to exploit existing resources or ideas for as long as possible. At some point, however, the exploitation choice runs out of road. Kodak, for example, invented the digital camera but decided not to explore it because it was exploiting highly profitable traditional film.

Performing paradoxes: these are tensions between competing goals. A company may want to improve its sustainability credentials, but this may come at a cost because the sustainable approach requires more expensive raw materials or manufacturing capacity. Clothing retailers face this dilemma when they embrace the circular economy, which boosts sustainability credentials but could mean people buy fewer new products.

Organising paradoxes: these relate to how a company structures itself. Should it be highly centralised or decentralised? Media companies like Netflix face this challenge because they want global efficiency and scale. At the same time, they need to localise content and cater to specific customer segments.

Belonging paradoxes: these relate to the tension between the individual and the collective. For example, to what extent should companies build a unified culture rather than recognise that there may be room for highly diverse and possibly conflicting viewpoints? Many organisations have star performers who are essential to corporate performance but who may also be mavericks and not always inclined to toe the corporate line.

In a brilliant article, called The tensions of defining and developing thought leadership within. knowledge-intensive firms (2), three academics and one law firm practitioner used paradox theory as a lens to look at how thought leadership is defined and produced. They described a number of tensions that exist at an individual, organisational and industry level that thought leadership producers need to consider. For example:

• Individual: How do individuals balance using the thought leadership derived from client engagement, with the restrictions of client confidentiality and intellectual property?
• Organisational: How should organisations decide which and how much thought leadership to commission and co-brand (buy-in) versus incentivise employees to develop (buy-out)?
• Industry: How do knowledge-based industries navigate longer-term knowledge advancement for wider stakeholder benefit compared with the narrower and short-term interests of satisfying the immediate needs of customers and clients?

Inspired by this article, I started thinking about the paradoxes of thought leadership. Going back to the four categories described in the Smith and Lewis article above, I realised that most companies are confronted with several key paradoxes, and that these fit neatly into the four categories they described.

Learning: there is an inherent tension between exploration and exploitation in thought leadership. There’s an expectation of the former: producers should be exploring entirely new ideas and concepts if possible, pushing into new territory and innovating with their thinking. Yet too much of this means latching onto every new buzzword and management fad. Visionary thinking is also typically less likely to address the fundamental challenges that are priorities for your audience today. Exploitation of existing ideas will usually be closer to those challenges and may be core to a company’s brand identity, but overemphasising exploitation means ultimately becoming stale and being seen as dependent on tired, old ideas.

The both/and synthesis of these seemingly contradictory demands requires an ambidextrous approach, with a portion of thought leadership geared towards visionary, future-focused ideas and a portion that doubles down on existing ideas and IP that have proven successful in the past. Consider allocating a majority of effort to exploiting existing IP that is closest to customer conversations, with a minority on expanding this IP into adjacent sectors and a portion focusing on genuine high-risk moonshots.

Performing: too often, thought leadership campaigns are expected to do everything. They are supposed to build trust and credibility over the long term by sharing expertise. At the same time, they should generate leads and a quick commercial return. These goals are often seen as contradictory - and can actually erode trust if they are not navigated effectively. Thought leadership that looks on the surface to be educational and trust-building but which is, in reality, a thinly disguised product pitch will achieve neither goal. Equally, an over-emphasis on quasi-academic, think-tank style ideas that are disconnected from commercial reality will quickly lead to budget being pulled.

The both/and synthesis requires looking at your thought leadership as a portfolio, in which different campaigns and assets perform different roles. Some can be more thematic with less obvious links to commercial activation; others are more closely coupled with creating demand for products and services. These can exist together, with each type playing its role at different points in the buying process. Consider, for example, ungated content that builds trust and credibility by focusing on the why and what of a business problem, while holding back the in-depth “how” of solutions to be revealed during conversations with customers, later in the buying process.

Organising: companies need to make choices about the extent to which they centralise thought leadership production versus offering greater flexibility and freedom at a local level. Too much control leads to bureaucracy and bottlenecks because all content is funnelled through an over-worked central team; too much flexibility can lead to cognitive dissonance, with conflicting messages that dilute the brand and confuse audiences.

The both/and synthesis involves a hybrid model, with a strong central core that governs overall narratives, tone of voice and messaging, while empowering decentralised teams and employees to come up with their own perspectives, provided they operate within a set of guardrails and parameters.

Belonging: there has always been a tension between “thought leaders” and “thought leadership”. Should perspectives primarily come from charismatic individuals within an organisation, or should there be a more consistent house view that articulates the corporate perspective and dials down individual expression? The rise of social media and B2B influencers suggests that the focus on individual perspectives has become more important and, to a large extent, it has. But there are risks with this approach, not least if a senior leader leaves and take their intellectual property and followers with them. Equally, an overemphasis on corporate thought leadership can feel stuffy, faceless and lacking in human emotion.

The both/and synthesis requires recognising that there is a need for corporate thought leadership, that expresses expertise and builds trust at a brand level, while seeing leaders and internal influencers as a conduit for expressing those ideas in a more personal way. Crucially, those individuals should have the freedom and flexibility to discuss the implications of the corporate-level messaging, bringing it to life and adding a much-needed human element that makes it relatable to the audience.

Paradoxes in thought leadership have often felt like either-or choices that ultimately lead to compromises and dissatisfaction. But, as management thinkers have suggested, success lies in holding both/and positions, and recognising that tension between different demands is not necessarily something to resolve but a healthy dynamic that leads to better content and business outcomes.
‍

1. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organising, Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis (Academy of Management Review, 2011)
2. The tensions of defining and developing thought leadership within knowledge-intensive firms, William S. Harvey, Vince-Wayne Mitchell, Alessandra Almeida Jones and Eric Knight (Journal of Knowledge Management, 2021)

‍