Paradoxes of Leadership:
An Exploratory Study of Public Sector
Leadership in Contexts of Complexity,
Ambiguity and Uncertainty
By Sueann Soon, Wong Fang Yan and
Professor Richard Bolden
November 2016
© 2017 Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 2
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sueann Soon is a Senior Manager/Senior Researcher in the Institute of Leadership and Organisation
Development (ILOD) of the Civil Service College. Prior to her current role in research, Sueann was
involved in the development of curriculum, as well as the design and delivery of programmes for
Public Officers in the areas of leadership, policy and creativity. Her current research interests include
resilience in leaders, teams and organisations; meta-capabilities in leadership; and organisational
culture.
Wong Fang Yan is a final year psychology undergraduate at Nanyang Technological University (NTU).
She was an intern in ILOD, CSC from May 2016 to July 2016. Fang Yan’s research experience includes
investigations into the work and living experiences of migrant construction workers in Singapore;
and a collaboration with Singapore General Hospital — Department of Neurology in a clinical
research investigating the use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among patients with
cognitive impairment in Singapore. Her current research interests lie in cross-cultural management
and work-life balance.
Richard Bolden is Professor of Leadership and Management and Director of Bristol Leadership and
Change Centre at the University of the West of England Business School. He is an Associate Editor of
the journal Leadership, Fellow of the Lancaster Leadership Centre and was Research Advisor to ILOD,
CSC from 2013 to 2015.
ABOUT THE INSTITUTE
Institute of Leadership and Organisation Development (ILOD) promotes and supports the
development of leadership and organisational development capabilities in the Public Service, so as to
build a pool of leaders, managers and practitioners to lead, support and sustain change and
transformation in their organisations. We do so by providing research, assessments and diagnostics;
learning and development programmes; and consultancy and advisory services to public agencies with
the aim of developing effective leaders, engaged employees, high performing teams and excellent
organisations.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 3
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................ 4
INTRODUCTION: WHY LOOK AT LEADERSHIP PARADOXES?................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................... 6
FINDINGS: KEY PARADOXES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE LEADERS................................................................... 7
A. AREAS OF PARADOX ............................................................................................................................ 7
1. Multiple facets of leadership ...................................................................................................... 7
2. Competing areas of focus ........................................................................................................... 8
3. Competing stakeholder needs .................................................................................................... 8
4. Paradox within organisations..................................................................................................... 9
4. Paradox within the self ............................................................................................................. 10
B. PERCEIVED CAUSES OF PARADOX ......................................................................................................... 10
C. COPING WITH PARADOX ..................................................................................................................... 11
ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF PARADOX ..................................... 14
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK: IDENTIFYING AND PREPARING FOR PARADOX........................................ 16
CONCLUSION: WORKING WITH PARADOX IN THE SINGAPORE PUBLIC SERVICE ................................. 17
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 19
ANNEX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................... 20
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 4
ABSTRACT
Whilst paradox may have always been present within organisations, there is evidence to suggest that
in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment that now characterises public
sector work, the ability to work with paradox is essential. Faced with complex, contested and
interdependent ‘wicked’ challenges, public sector leaders are expected to deliver apparently
contradictory outcomes, such as improving services and cutting costs, often at the same time.
Responding to such demands requires inclusive and collaborative leadership that may challenge
established practices, assumptions and ways of working.
This report, based on in-depth qualitative interviews with 21 leaders/managers across 11 different
public sector agencies in the Singapore public service, reveals a range of paradoxes and tensions they
experience in their work, their thoughts on potential causes, and coping strategies they have
developed to deal with them. The paradoxes identified relate to multiple facets of leadership;
competing areas of focus; competing stakeholder needs; tensions within the organisation; and
paradoxes within self. Perceived causes of paradox include: it being a natural part of life in
organisations; the result of systemic cycles within public service work; a consequence of organisational
culture; and/or leadership gaps. Coping strategies include: having strong values; clarity of objectives;
adopting a learning orientation; ‘naming’ the tensions; and reframing situations.
The report concludes with an integrated framework for thinking about and addressing leadership
paradoxes, which identifies potential causes and informs developmental interventions for individuals,
teams and/or organisations. It concludes by suggesting that paradox has become a ubiquitous feature
of life in public service organisations and that the development, recognition and reward of leaders at
all levels should take account of this in order to better prepare them for the volatility, uncertainty,
complexity and ambiguity they will inevitably face.
“The difference between average and outstanding firms is an ‘AND Mentality’. We
must find and create tensions — force people into different space for thinking... This
is not just a performance issue but a survival issue, because managing paradox helps
foster creativity and high performance.”
— Paul Polman
CEO, Unilever
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 5
INTRODUCTION: WHY LOOK AT LEADERSHIP PARADOXES?
Whilst paradox has always been present within organisations, there is evidence to suggest that in the
volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment that now characterises public sector
work, the ability to work with paradox is essential.1,2 Faced with complex, contested and
interdependent ‘wicked’ challenges,3 public sector leaders are expected to deliver apparently
contradictory outcomes, such as improving services and cutting costs at the same time. Responding
to such demands requires inclusive and collaborative leadership that may challenge established
practices, assumptions and ways of working.4
Paradox is defined as the “persistent contradiction between interdependent elements” 5, a key feature
of which “is the simultaneous presence of contradictory, even mutually exclusive elements” that
“seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously”.6
Despite the ubiquity of paradox and contradiction much management and leadership theory, practice
and development reinforces the assumption that leaders and managers exert direct influence over
organisational outcomes7. Such concepts continue to influence leadership and management practice
and development around the world and, whilst many non-Western countries have a tradition of
recognising and valuing paradox, it is not well documented how they achieve this in the face of
pressure to conform to concepts of professionalism promoted through global management
education.8
This report addresses these issues by presenting findings from an exploratory study of the paradoxes
experienced by public service leaders in Singapore and how they endeavour to address them. It
concludes with an analysis of key themes and implications for leadership and management theory,
practice and development in complex and changing environments.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 6
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to better understand the challenges faced by public sector leaders/managers
in Singapore and the kinds of paradoxes and dilemmas they experience. In-depth qualitative
interviews were conducted with a total of 21 leaders/managers from 11 different public agencies,
recruited from a database of alumnus from the Civil Service College’s leadership programmes. In order
to enable comparative analysis, respondents were selected from a range of levels of seniority (7 in
each):



Senior (e.g., Director, Principal),
Middle (e.g., Deputy Director),
Junior (e.g., Manager, Senior Manager).
A semi-structured interview was conducted to identify trends and enable comparison between
respondents. The interview covered the following areas: role and responsibilities; experience of
contradictions, paradoxes and/or dilemmas; causes and consequences of these paradoxes and
challenges; strategies/practices to deal with paradox; and the perceived importance of dealing with
paradox in the Singapore Public Service (see Annex A).
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed using an interpretivist
approach during which a neutral coder, who had not been involved in the interviews, conducted byline and axial coding to identify categories of responses. Emergent themes were clarified and refined
with the two interviewers before finalisation.
“Living with contradiction may be nothing new to humans, but acknowledging it,
and accepting it are. Even the dictionary has trouble accepting a paradox, calling it
'two things that seem to be contradictory but may possibly be true.' But that's not a
real paradox — a real paradox IS contradictory and IS true.”
— Shellen Lubin
Playwright, songwriter, director and coach
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 7
FINDINGS: Key paradoxes for public service leaders
Five broad areas of paradox were identified from the interviews, along with insights into the potential
causes of paradox and how to cope with them (see Figure 1).
A. Areas of
Paradox
B. Perceived
Causes of
Paradox
C. Coping with
Paradox
Multiple facets of
leadership
A natural occurrence
Clarity of personal
values
Competing areas of
focus
Systemic cycles
Competing stakeholder
needs
Paradox within
organisations
Paradox within the Self
Clarity about what to
achieve
Adopting a learning
orientation
Organisational culture
“Naming” the situation
Leadership gaps
Reframing
Figure 1: Areas of paradoxes, perceived causes and coping strategies
A. Areas of Paradox
1. Multiple facets of leadership
Respondents reported the need to act as leaders, co-leaders and followers depending on the situation,
which can give rise to paradoxical expectations. A comparison of the transcripts suggested that senior
and middle level leaders/managers were expected to adapt to a larger variety of leadership situations
and demands compared to their junior counterparts.
I think leadership has got multiple facets, sometimes you’ve got to lead from the front, where
you are directive. Sometimes you’ve got to lead from behind, because you don’t know it all and
you operate through a team. Sometimes you’ve got to lead by the side, you know, enabling
your team and running alongside with them. Sometimes you’ve just got to get out of the way…
so the way I frame it is zoom in, zoom out leadership…, and also where you play and being very
aware about the context, the situation, and choosing your leadership style in different
moments differently. (Transcript 13, Director/Senior Level)
While this may be a reflection of the more complex demands at higher levels of leadership, this theme
also suggests the presence of greater capacity for adaptation and flexibility amongst this group of
leaders/managers. Perhaps at higher levels, leaders/managers have access to more comprehensive
and intimate knowledge of different parts of the system, which enriches their appreciation of the
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 8
contextual environment. This in turn, provides rich input to guide their actions and decisions across
situations. Alternatively, this group of leaders/managers may simply possess richer career
experiences, which have enabled them to build up the relevant leadership capacities and capabilities
compared to their junior counterparts.
2. Competing areas of focus
In essence, this was a tension about “when to focus on what”. Across all the levels of leaders/managers
interviewed, they often found themselves struggling between pushing their staff/officers to deliver
results on the one hand, and taking care of their wellbeing and professional development on the other.
In practice, this is not a new area of tension for leaders. However, it is likely to have been identified as
an area of paradox because increasingly, leaders/managers are expected to attend to both at the same
time. The following quotes highlight the experience of this paradox.
There’s a trade-off between [developing people]… and the timeliness of delivering... If I did it
myself… probably get done very fast. But then that means that I deprive my staff of the
opportunity… (Transcript 15, Director/Senior Level)
It's the line between being kind and firm and demanding; and kind in the sense of not just of,
you know, taking care of human needs, but also in terms of realising that you know, people
like I said earlier, lah [sic], they get tired. Sometimes people just need a slow day, you know,
to help them recover from a mad period of rushing around; and the challenge with [our agency]
is just so much to do — there isn't always time to wind down. (Transcript 16, Director/Senior
Level)
3. Competing stakeholder needs
The emergence of this theme should not be a surprise considering the increasingly cross-boundary
nature of work in the Public Service. Leaders/managers across all levels found themselves facing the
challenge of meeting competing needs and expectations of the various internal and external
stakeholders that they have to work with. For senior level leaders/managers, paradoxes often arose
because of the need for them to work across multiple boundaries, such as team-organisation,
organisation-citizen. In these contexts, leadership involves facilitating collaboration, influencing
perspectives and shaping identities rather than exerting hierarchical power.
You have to work with people with diverse views, sometimes different agendas, and this
typically happens when you are working across teams, or across organisations because our
work involves other organisations. So in those situations, I find it most challenging when
people have their own views and agenda, and to find a way to converge because you need to
collaborate; so that is always tricky. (Transcript 1, Senior Manager/Middle Level)
With regards to internal stakeholders, leaders/managers at the middle and junior levels were more
likely to mention a struggle between the demands of management goals and team constraints. This is
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 9
perhaps a reflection of their position within the context of the organisational hierarchy — between
the strategic directive and the delivery of front-line services.
I think management, at least in an organisation like [ours], where people are results-oriented
and it’s a very fast-paced organisation, people want results fast and a lot of this process
actually take [sic] a long time to change and a lot of effort. So you feel a little bit sandwiched
sometimes and there is actually quite a lot of effort that needs to go into communication to
the bosses as to why certain things seemed like they’re not moving. (Transcript 11,
Lead/Middle Level).
4. Paradox within organisations
Interviewees across the levels reported contradictions and, to an extent, inconsistencies around the
organisation’s values, mission, objectives and approach to change. This was often experienced as a
perceived mismatch between rhetoric and reality, as illustrated by the following observation about
the rhetoric of organisational values and values in use.
… productivity drive keeps coming up but at the same time I don’t see work volume going down
and I don’t see any fruits of whatever productivity drive that the government is driving.
(Transcript 21, Manager/Junior Level)
In some cases, interviewees expressed frustration towards what they saw to be inherent
contradictions in the organisation’s mission:
There is a whole regulation and then the promotion side where we actually dish out a lot of
funds to the industry to promote, to grow capabilities… But somehow in the end, on net, [our
agency] is like this horrible ogre that you know is imposing all these rules and regulations on
people (Transcript 12, Manager/Junior Level)
The experience of paradox within the organisation extended to its approach to change. Interviewees
reported that the calls to change and maintain long-term focus were contradicted by simultaneous
calls to deliver quick results and certain degree of risk aversion.
I think the Singapore government has long-term visions and plans in a sense; but in terms of
project management, in terms of actual outputs, it’s usually quite deadline focused. (Transcript
6, Deputy Director/Middle Level)
I feel that a lot of people have very interesting ideas and want to make changes. But somehow,
I feel that there is a certain fear in championing the more controversial changes. (Transcript
11, Lead/Middle Level)
Such perceived paradox demonstrates how organisational and policy intentions can become ‘lost in
translation’ as they are converted into measurable targets. Whilst these measures are relevant and
necessary for accountability, the strong emphasis on targets may unintentionally divert attention from
the underlying purpose(s) and aims of the organisation and create a sense of disconnect for
leaders/managers and their staff.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 10
At the same time, it could be argued, the Public Service has an inherently paradoxical role in which it
both enables industry and regulates industry. The boundary between these two functions is blurred.
Interviewees in this study operate at this blurred boundary every day and the experience of paradox
may be magnified when the parameters for decision-making are uncertain.
5. Paradox within the self
Leaders/managers across the levels acknowledged that they regularly struggle to prioritise job
responsibilities and achievements in the face of other personal, team and organisational demands.
Two main issues were identified.
Firstly, there was a perceived misalignment between job demands and personal values.
Leaders/managers at the senior level reported situations where they had to undertake tasks that were
inconsistent with their personal values.
So maybe I am not personally very convinced about certain cause or direction that I have been
asked to take, but I need to execute that mandate. (Transcript 17, Director/Senior Level)
Secondly, there was a tension between asserting the self and prioritising larger objectives of
organisation/team. Leaders/managers in the senior and middle levels often faced the dilemma of
whether to achieve personal work goals or meeting the objectives of their organisation and/or team.
… do I want to be known for being someone with great achievements and very well regarded
by management for a lot of new initiatives or do I want to be responsible to my team in
delivering something that is solid and good and they could feel sort of proud to be part of all
these things… (Transcript 11, Lead/Middle Level)
Interestingly, junior level leaders/managers were not represented in this area, suggesting perhaps
that more senior leaders/managers were in a better position to appreciate the paradoxical nuances
of their internal state vis-à-vis the demands of the job.
B. Perceived Causes of Paradox
When asked their opinion about the likely causes of paradox in their workplace, respondents gave
four main responses.
A number of interviewees suggested that paradox was a natural and inevitable feature of the
system. These tended to be more senior leaders/managers who have been in the Public Service for a
number of years and were likely to have worked in more than one agency during the course of their
career.
So my perspective is that the tensions and competing requirements are natural. (Transcript 2,
Director/Senior Level)
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 11
Others suggested that organisational culture and mindsets played a part in reinforcing observed
patterns of paradox.
I think structure has a role to play with it, incentives has [sic] got a role to play with it, KPIs has
got a role to play with it. Existing policies which cannot be changed overnight have a role to
play with it… But I think the biggest challenge for us is the mindset’s right. (Transcript 13,
Director/Senior Level)
One of the respondents suggested that the prevalence and persistence of paradoxes was a result of
systemic cycles (e.g., leadership rotation cycle) which discourages leaders from taking a longer-term
perspective in decision-making.
… I think the Singapore government has long-term visions and plans… Maybe it’s because of the
rotation system because you know, you only have such a short time to make your work high profile
before you leave and go somewhere else; so you better seize the opportunity. (Transcript 6, Deputy
Director/Middle Level)
Finally, it was suggested that paradoxes emerged through leadership gaps, whereby leaders/managers
are insufficiently prepared for their role. This observation may not be far from reality. Past studies
with Public Service leaders/managers suggested that they often did not feel sufficiently equipped for
their jobs.9
…I think managing a team and being aware of people management… is not something we are
taught before we are given that role. So I think a lot of people are thrown into it then you kind of
have to figure out along the way (Transcript 8, Deputy Director/Middle Level)
Interestingly, leaders/managers at the junior level were not represented in this section, suggesting
that those at more senior levels of leadership/management were better able to identify and articulate
the potential causes of paradox.
C. Coping with Paradox
When examining the coping strategies and practices used by leaders/managers at different levels,
clear differences emerged. Senior and middle leaders/managers were likely to describe taking an
active approach to managing paradoxes, whilst junior leaders/managers tended to describe a more
passive approach. In managing paradoxes, leaders/managers at the senior and middle
leaders/managers were more likely to:
i.
ii.
iii.
Accept the work of sense-making and managing paradoxes as a leader’s responsibility, so as
to facilitate team members’ work.
Contemplate and take proactive steps to minimise the occurrence and impact of paradoxes
in the future.
Perceive paradoxes as opportunities for learning and/or innovation.
In doing so, leaders/managers at the senior and middle levels demonstrated the ability to taking
alternative perspectives in their approach to paradoxical situations; exercise agency to change what
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 12
they can; and reframe ambiguity into meaningful contexts for constructive action. For example, having
clarity of guiding values and being anchored in them facilitated decision-making when a
leader/manager had to navigate a situation with paradoxical demands.
…the thing about navigating tensions and paradoxes [is that] if there is [no] foundational set
of values to work with, it’s very difficult because you’ll be shifting… So with reference to the
public sector leadership, the values are crucial and the values are to be in the right place
(Transcript 18, Principal/Senior Leader)
Clear guiding values also allowed leaders/managers to ‘maintain a clear head’ and focus on the work
that needed to be done despite the distractions of seemingly competing demands.
So the reality is there are always these trade-offs and I think as leaders, we are called to make,
at different levels, different decisions, different trade-offs… I don’t find that difficult to do
because… I am very clear about the mission and the values and the principles upon which we
exist. (Transcript 7, Director/Senior Leader)
Another active approach was to adopt a learning orientation towards paradox. Instead of persisting
in the “dance of paradox”, learning from others can prevent leaders from getting trapped in the
vicious circularity of the paradoxes.
So what I found helpful is being able to understand the bigger picture; and sometimes I don’t
have that information if I’m just relying on myself. So having access to that information or
having the opportunity to consult ad discuss with others who may have that information is
useful because then when we are clearer about the bigger picture, then we can see is this the
best opportunity for you to influence; or is there another opportunity… and having others who
go through that same experience — those would be a good support because then you could
exchange notes and learn from one another. (Transcript 1, Senior Manager/Middle Level)
Similarly, by “naming” the tensions, senior/middle leaders permit themselves and their co-workers
to speak openly about the tensions and uncertainties.
…you need to voice the situation; don't keep it to yourself… when do I start lighting the fire or
lighting the signal so that people know, ‘okay, this is not going on track; I'm doing something
to fix it.’… and I think it relates to a few of those paradoxes in the sense, you know, how much
do you let someone fail; how much you experiment… (Transcript 6, Deputy Director/Middle
Level)
Finally, senior/middle leaders also approach paradoxes by reframing the situation. By letting go of a
fixed view on issues without clearly right or wrong solutions, this group of senior/middle leaders
increase the possibility of appreciating issues and potential next-steps from a new perspective:
So in many of these paradoxes, it's not one or the other — it's just when's the right time for
something… So I guess if you have a more contextualised, maybe nuanced way of looking at
situations… then it won't be such a paradox. It's just recognition that needs shift; expectations
shift. You can satisfy things for that moment and things would shift again. You cannot satisfy
something forever. (Transcript 6, Deputy Director/Middle Level)
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 13
In comparison, junior leaders/managers were more likely to raise issues to supervisors/leaders to seek
clarity and direction in their resolution. This strategy suggests that this group often find themselves
“coping in the moment” when confronted with paradox. Rather than a reflection of low competency,
this could well be a reflection of the positional constraints of this group, such as the pressure to deliver
results quickly or limited access to strategic considerations, which make it difficult to take a broader,
more systemic perspective on the situation themselves.
(On coping with paradox) Time is a major factor… if the work is very urgent and very time sensitive,
typically we’ll just round up everybody and like [sic] get the boss’s ideas on what do you think
should be done next and then we just go ahead. (Transcript 4, Lead Analyst/Junior)
The differences observed in coping styles between senior/middle and junior leaders can potentially
be explained by the following reasons. Firstly, it is possible that with experience, people come to
realise that decision-making in the workplace is rarely a simple either-or choice. Leaders/managers at
more senior levels are accountable for a wider range of activities and therefore, less able to prioritise
one over the other. Secondly, it is also possible that by virtue of their position and role in the
organisation, senior leaders/ managers possess a more systemic perspective of the context and hence,
are more likely to appreciate the interdependencies. Finally, leaders/managers at more senior levels
could simply be more skilled at working within ambiguity and uncertainty.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 14
ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION:
CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OR PARADOX
There are a number of potential explanations for the themes and issues identified from this study,
including the need for leaders/managers in the public service to work across multiple dimensions of
role (e.g., leading, managing, collaborating); space (e.g., individual, team, organisation); and time
(e.g., short, medium, long-term). The ability to recognise and respond to these tensions may be
affected by a range of factors such as seniority, background, culture and so on.
Role
Respondents in this study needed to balance different, potentially contradictory, roles such as:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Individual contributor: with expectations around professional expertise, knowledge and
competence (competency focus).
Manager: with expectations around planning, administering and achieving targets (task
focus).
Leader: with expectations around inspiring, engaging and influencing others (people focus).
Collaborator: with expectations around team work and collaboration to address shared
problems and issues (problem focus).
It is likely that people will feel more comfortable in some roles than others. At the same time, it is
likely that the organisation will not recognise and reward all roles equally. Role conflict is likely to be
most pronounced for those in roles where they are expected to be accountable but where they also
have limited power and resources. This tension is most evident when respondents speak about
multiple facets of leadership and competing areas of focus.
Space
Respondents in this study were expected to work across a number of different spaces of activity. These
included:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Self: assessed and rewarded for individual contribution
Team: developing and maintaining the team
Department: contributing to a sub-part of the organisation
Organisation: organisation-level performance and targets
Partnership: representing and contributing towards partnerships
Community: wider contribution to communities and society
The target outcomes for each space may not be aligned, resulting in ambiguity around priorities and
rewards. Space conflict is likely to be most pronounced where there is a mismatch between the spaces
and/or between role and space. This tension was most evident in respondents’ sharing on competing
stakeholder needs, paradox within the organisation, as well as paradox within the self.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 15
Time
Different tasks and activities operate on different time scales. Leaders/managers in the Public Service
often described the need to balance a portfolio of activities with different schedules:
i.
ii.
iii.
Short term: dictated by operational deadlines, with pressing targets
Medium term: activities that operate on a longer cycle, such as annual planning and
monitoring, and staff development
Long term: planning and responses to longer term trends and issues, such as social and
demographic changes and changing demand for services.
There was a tendency for short-term targets to take priority over medium and longer-term issues,
leading to individuals, groups and organisations working in a reactive rather than proactive way when
planning for the future. Previous history can also have an effect on the ability to meet current and
future aims. A key challenge for leaders/managers was to facilitate change whilst retaining a sense of
continuity. This tension runs through all themes but is most evident when respondents struggled with
competing areas of focus, competing stakeholder needs, and paradox within the organisations. This
also surfaced when respondents spoke about the perceived causes of paradox.
“One must not think slightingly of the paradoxical…for the paradox is the source of
the thinker’s passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without
feeling: a paltry mediocrity.”
— Søren Kierkegaard
Philosopher
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 16
INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK: Identifying and preparing for paradox
The three domains (role, space and time) outlined above can be used to map out an integrated
framework for thinking about and responding to paradox (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Integrated framework of paradox
In this framework, role, space and time are categorical variables. Individuals are likely to occupy
several points on each axis. Given the 3 dimensions, Figure 2 may more usefully be considered as a
cube rather than a 2-dimensional graph.
Paradoxes are likely to be experienced when people need to work across different roles, space
and/or time positions at the same time. There will also be interaction effects across dimensions. For
example, the tension between leading and managing is experienced as more paradoxical when
working in a partnership or community environment, or when balancing short and long term aims.
This framework can potentially be used in a number of different ways:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Individuals could use it to identify likely areas of difficulty for themselves and/or others and
to help them prepare for situations where paradoxes are experienced.
Teams could use it to map their activities and to identify potential areas of conflict with other
teams/groups within or beyond their organisation.
Organisations could use it to review systems, processes and/or strategies and, where
possible, remove ambiguities or inconsistencies.
Partnerships could use it to facilitate discussion around differing agendas, priorities and/or
identities in order to increase understanding and improve opportunities for collaboration.
There are parallels between this framework and that of other researchers.10,11,12
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 17
CONCLUSION:
WORKING WITH PARADOX IN THE SINGAPORE PUBLIC SERVICE
In volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environments, leaders and organisations face a
range of paradoxes, dilemmas and tensions that are not easy to resolve. Leadership, management and
organisation development, as well as performance review and appraisal processes need to recognise
this and support the development of individual and collective capacity to deal with paradox. Such
processes may feel counter-cultural in contexts where rationality, planning and control are
emphasised and rewarded. This research offers the opportunity for individuals, groups and
organisations in the Singapore Public Service to identify, articulate and reflect on some of the
paradoxes they face.
Working with paradox requires us to think differently about how we try to resolve problems.
As the management guru Charles Handy argued:
We need a new way of thinking about our problems and our futures. My suggestion is the
management of paradox, an idea which is itself a paradox, in that paradox can only be
‘managed’ in the sense of ‘coping with’. Management always did mean ‘coping with’, until we
purloined the word to mean planning and control. 13
Rather than seeking control, he suggests, we need to generate a compelling narrative that generates
a sense of engagement and purpose:
To find that reason or our doing and our being, it helps to build on three senses — a sense of
continuity, a sense of connection, and a sense of direction. Without them we may feel
disorientated and rudderless. 13
The current study supports this argument and indicates that there is value is reviewing how the
Singapore Pubic Service supports leaders working in VUCA contexts and prepares them to deal with
the paradoxes they are likely to face. This may well involve:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Individual development: especially practices such as coaching, mentoring and shadowing that
enable exploration of real-time challenges in context.
Team development: to build collective capacity, a sense of shared purpose and a systemic
understanding of the interdependencies between team members and their relative expertise
and priorities.
Organisational development: addressing potential inconsistencies between performance and
appraisal criteria and how systems and processes support the overall aims of the organisation.
Cultural development: considering opportunities for cultural change within the wider Public
Service including attitudes towards risk, accountability and shared leadership.
Examples of practices for dealing with paradox that have emerged from this study include:
i.
ii.
Naming: identifying and describing polarities.
Clarifying: reviewing paradoxes and, where possible, removing inconsistencies and
(re)clarifying priorities and purpose.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Paradoxes of Leadership | 18
Reframing: demonstrating the interdependence of polarities, and where possible,
repositioning them from either/or choices to both/and opportunities.
Connecting: paradoxes often emerge where people work in silos. By connecting people,
fostering collaboration and working across boundaries it becomes possible to create more
integrated ways of working.
Supporting: working with paradox is difficult and may create stress and anxiety. Organisations
should support leaders (and others) to deal with the emotional effects and facilitate
engagement around identity, values and purpose.
Learning: paradoxes provide useful insights into the beliefs and assumptions that shape how
people and organisations operate. Opening up discussion and exploration of these issues can
create valuable learning.
Ultimately, an ability to recognise and embrace paradox opens new opportunities for leaders and
organisations in terms of promoting creativity, experimentation and breaking down entrenched
assumptions and ways of working.
“The nature of paradox, turning things on their head, flipping ideas upside-down —
and knowing how to reconcile and ride the tension of opposites — is at the heart of
leadership and indeed life.”
— Sir Paul Callaghan
Physicist
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 19
REFERENCES
1. Johanssen, B. (2012) Leaders Make the Future: Ten New Leadership Skills for an Uncertain
Future, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
2. Ghate, D., Lewis, J. and Welbourn, D. (2013) “Systems Leadership: exceptional leadership for
exceptional times,” Synthesis report. Nottingham: Virtual Staff College.
3. Grint, K. (2008) “Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: the role of leadership,” Clinical Leader,
1(2), 54–68.
4. Bolden, R., Witzel, M. and Linacre, N. (2016) Leadership Paradoxes: Rethinking Leadership for an
Uncertain World. London: Routledge.
5. Schad, J., Lewis, M.W., Raisch, S. and Smith, W.K. (2016) “Paradox research in management
science: Looking back to move forward,” Academy of Management Annals 10(1): 5–64.
6. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1988) "Organisational paradox and transformation," in Paradox
and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organisation and Management. New York:
HarperBusiness, pp. 1–18.
7. Stacey, R. (2006) "Learning as an activity of interdependent people," in Complexity and
Organisation: Readings and Conversations, MacIntosh, R., MacLean, D., Stacey, R. and Griffin, D.
(eds.), pp. 237–246.
8. Khurana, R. (2007) From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American
Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
9. Soon, S. and Wang, J.W. (2014) High Potentials’ Learning and Development through Job
Rotations. Civil Service College Singapore.
10. Lombardo, M.M. and Eichinger, R.W. (2001) The Leadership Machine: Architecture to Develop
Leaders for any Future. Minneapolis: Lominger Limited.
11. Charan, R., Drotter, S. J., and Noel, J. L. (2001) The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the
Leadership-powered Company. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Keller, S. and Price, C. (2011) Beyond Performance: How Great Organizations Build Ultimate
Competitive Advantage. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Handy, C. (1994) The Age of Paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
FURTHER READING
The ideas in this report are inspired by the book:
Bolden, R., Witzel, M. and Linacre, N. (2016) Leadership Paradoxes:
Rethinking Leadership for an Uncertain World. London: Routledge
For related resources, including videos, readings and discussion
questions please visit www.leadershipparadoxes.com; Twitter:
@lshipparadoxes.
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
RESTRICTED
Paradoxes of Leadership | 20
ANNEX A: Interview questions
1. Could you please begin with a brief description of your role and main responsibilities at work?
 Job role and responsibilities
 How does this relate to the purpose/aims of your organisation
 Time in post/organisation
2. Where and when do you need to exercise leadership in your role?
 Why, in what way(s), who/what do you lead
 To what extent does your role require you to co-lead and follow
 Do you also have management responsibilities
3. Are there any aspects of leadership in this context that you find particularly challenging?
 What sort(s) of issues/problems
 Why are they challenging
4. To what extent do you face competing or contradictory demands and expectations at work?
 Please give examples (ethical, financial, task…)
 Are these the consequences of organisational practices, processes and/or context
5. Can you identify any persistent paradoxes or dilemmas for leaders in your professional and/or
organisational context?
 What are they (given examples if needed)
 What are the main polarities that need to be managed
 Are they specific to you/your team or experienced more widely
6. In your opinion what are the main causes of these paradoxes and challenges?
 Are they related to particular types of problem – tame, wicked
 Are they within or outside the control of you or your organisation
 Who/what is responsible for addressing them
7. Have you developed any strategies or practices to help you deal with paradoxes and tensions at
work?
 What do you do
 How did you learn to do this
 Is there anything about you as a person, organisation or society that enables you to
respond more or less effectively
 How does your approach differ from that of colleagues
 Does your organisation allow for different approaches to emerge
8. OPTIONAL: In your opinion, how important is it for leaders and managers in the Singapore Civil
Service to be able to deal with paradox and ambiguity?
 Why, for what sorts of issue
 Is it a new or increasing challenge
 Is this something that people generally find easy or difficult to deal with
 Is it something that’s recognised or rewarded by the Singapore Civil Service
9. OPTIONAL: Do you have any additional comments in relation to this issue that we have not
discussed and that are important to understanding leadership and paradox in the Singapore
public service?
© 2017, Civil Service College
RESTRICTED
Civil Service College, Singapore
31 North Buona Vista Road Singapore 275983
www.cscollege.gov.sg
www.facebook.com/CivilServiceCollegeSingapore
© 2017 Civil Service College, Singapore. All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced, modified,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
Civil Service College, Singapore.
© 2017 Civil Service College