Our multi-sited ethnographic study of a global value chain examines how power dynamics shape actors’ experience of and response to interorganizational sustainability paradoxes, i.e. persistent tensions between interdependent social and financial objectives. We distinguish between power manifesting as power-over (when it is used to control others) and as power-with (a collective empowerment based on the recognition of interdependence). Our findings reveal that oppressive power-over relationships lead to fragmented experiences of paradox, constraining actors’ collective capacity to productively respond to sustainability paradoxes. However, we also discover that power can act as a generative force for paradox management. When power-over is more balanced, mechanisms of power-with (such as strategic allying, transparent structuring and expanding structures) can emerge, leading to more collective paradox experiences and responses, which allow interorganizational actors to harness the potential of paradox as a source of collective sustainability. We generalize our findings in a process model that highlights how, in interorganizational settings, balancing power-over is not enough for proactive paradox handling. In addition, it needs to be followed up by mechanisms of power-with across levels. Our paper contributes to paradox theory and global value chain theory by developing a more nuanced understanding of the interrelationship between paradox and power, unpacking the role of power-with mechanisms for the process of recognizing interdependence and collaboratively addressing interorganizational paradoxes in global value chains.

Paradox theory increasingly acknowledges power, yet we still lack a clear account of how power dynamics shape the lived experience and constitution of organizational paradox. Addressing the question ‘what is the role of power in shaping organizational paradoxes?’ we develop a power-performative model grounded in Clegg’s circuits of power to show how tensions become enacted, legitimized or suppressed through interactions, institutions and material infrastructures. The article contributes to paradox theory by (1) articulating an ontology of paradox as performed through situated, multilevel power relations; (2) theorizing how power dynamics influence when and how tensions are surfaced, framed or rendered invisible; and (3) advancing a critical, reflexive agenda that asks whose contradictions are recognized, whose are silenced and with what organizational effects.

We approach resilience (i.e., elasticity under pressure) with a paradox lens. Paradox refers to persistent interdependent oppositions. We discuss resilience as paradoxical and explore the potential of organizational paradox theory to expand our knowledge of resilience. Specifically, we consider four inherent tensions at the core of the resilience process (robustness vs numbness, strength vs vulnerability, preparation vs reaction, and individual vs collective) and explore how they manifest as paradoxes that need to be navigated. We explain that continued resilience results from the dynamic interplay and the quality of the integration of these opposites on an ongoing basis.

Over three decades ago, Marshall Scott Poole and Andrew Van de Ven proposed using paradoxes to develop more rigorous and robust organizational theories. We reignite their efforts while offering two important advances. First, we introduce to their initial ideas the expanding paradox literature to suggest how scholars can generate creative theories by surfacing and engaging tensions. We label this process paradoxical theorizing , which we define as a set of practices leveraging interdependent contradictions to generate new theory. Second, recognizing that extant theorizing emphasizes cognitive analysis and formal reasoning, we seek to expand this approach by unpacking four modalities of paradoxical theorizing and identifying the embedded tensions within each modality. We contribute to organizational theory by explicating a process and modalities that draw on tensions to generate more creative theories.