Options
Harald Tuckermann
Title
Prof. Dr.
Last Name
Tuckermann
First name
Harald
Email
harald.tuckermann@unisg.ch
Phone
+41799586336
Homepage
Now showing
1 - 10 of 51
-
PublicationType: conference paper
-
-
-
PublicationRegaining agency with third spaces to address a pragmatic paradox -a process study of change in a nursing unit EGOS 2024 -Milano( 2024-07-04)This paper explores how members of a subordinate unit address a pragmatic paradox. While paradox literature acknowledges insufficient agency as a critical condition for addressing paradox, it overlooks the catch-22 of enhancing meta-communication which requires agency to regain agency. Based on analysis of a change process in a nursing department we argue that actors can address this catch-22 by establishing third spaces-which are social spaces of communication to address contradictory issues. The process study reveals a trajectory of iteratively expanding agency from within the unit to other subordinate actors and to dominant actors, that is driven by spacing patterns of establishing third spaces. These insights form a process model that helps to explain how actors regain agency over time to address a pragmatic paradox. In addition to this contribution, the paper strengthens a relational view on paradox, argues for widening the understandings of paradox beyond contradictory demands, and speaks to literature on social spaces by revealing spacing patterns to establish third spaces.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationWhat is fix and what is not? - Process perspectives on studying paradox( 2024-07-06)Marc KrautzbergerThis paper applies a process perspective on studies of paradoxes in organizations. It identifies six ideal types of process approaches of how paradoxes and their management can be studied. Thereby, we aim to strengthen a dynamic understanding of paradox and support scholars in their choices when conducting research, specifically what is considered as fixed and what as dynamic.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationType: conference paper
-
PublicationWhy do heroic leadership and gender inequality persist? A paradox lens on change towards post-heroic leadership and gender equality( 2023-07)The notion of leadership has changed dramatically over the last two decades. There is an increasing need for “post-heroic” leadership to approach complex, uncertain and interde-pendent tasks (Škerlavaj, 2022). Such “new” leadership is said to be more team-based (Yammarino et al., 2012), shared (Pearce, Conger & Lock, 2007), relational (Sanfuentes et al., 2020), more empowering followers (Collinson, 2005, p. 1422) and more participatory (Yukl, 1999). This “new” leadership is often referred to as “post-heroic” as it is focused on the relation, and not so much on the leader performing in any way (Collinson, 2005, p. 1422). However, the heroic leader is still prominent in today’s companies. One source of the resilience of heroic leadership is its association with masculinity (Fletcher, 2004). Depicting heroic leadership as masculine and post-heroic as more feminine associates gender and lead-ership to this gender binary. Hegemonic masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005) maintains heroic leadership and explains the exclusion of women from leadership positions. Gender equality in leadership hence remains a stalled revolution as long as the power effects of hegemonic masculinity are not up for reflection and change (Friedman, 2015). How can leadership be changed and gender equality facilitated? We have explored this question in 15 group discussions with Swiss male and female leaders. Investigating their sense-making revealed that these leaders are locked-in manoeuvring this topic in paradoxical ways. First, they consider heroic leadership ‘as old-fashioned and post-heroic leadership as a necessity of our times’ with the former ‘still powerful and often taken for granted’. Second, they discuss leadership as both ‘masculine’ and excluding women from leadership positions as well as ‘gender neutral’ and geared to organizational goals. Third, the participants believe that changing leadership will come naturally but also elaborate the need for leaders to be-come agentic. Applying a paradox lens, we zoom in on the above tensions. First, our analysis high-lights that post-heroic leadership and gender equality are not separate from but embedded in heroic leadership and gender inequality, respectively. Hence, agency is distributed asymmet-rically even for leaders due to power differences of their personal agency and that of others (Berti & Simpson, 2021). Second, our data suggests that unfolding the above tensions invites a context-specific experimental approach. Third, such an approach starts with leaders’ in-sight of being part of the problem in order to be part of the solution (Kahane, 2017). We the-orize this insight as a self-referential both/and approach of male leaders to depict the situa-tion in which they find themselves in when experimenting with post-heroic leadership and gender equality. Experimenting within the realm of their domain results not only from the surrounding dominance, but also from their own positioning within that setting.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationBoth/and approaches and vicious cycles: -a process study of navigating paradox during COVID-19( 2023-07-08)This paper seeks to explain why a both/and approach can lead to a vicious cycle instead of a virtuous one as paradox literature suggests. The study draws on data from a longitudinal process study of how a hospital navigated the paradox of treating patients during the COVID-19 pandemic with a both/and approach that resulted in reduced treatment capacity. By analyzing the events unfolding over time, I use a circular logic and induce a systemic model to explain how and why a both/and approach can lead to a vicious cycle. The explanation lies in two feedback loops, which are the effects of a both/and approach on resource scarcity and on affective conflicts among organizational members. The proposed model advances existing explanations on why a both/and approach can lead to a vicious or a virtuous cycle. The model underscores a shift in paradox scholarship to a processual understanding that accounts for effects on the conditions that surface paradox. These insights help organizations tap the creative potential of paradox and avoid the outcome irony that aiming to balance contradictory demands reduces the possibility to do so over time.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationNavigating a pragmatic paradox -a process study of change in a nursing unit PROS-076, presented at 14 th PROS, June 18-21 2023, Chania (Greece)( 2023-06-17)This paper explores how members of a subordinate unit navigate a so-called pragmatic paradox. It is a situation in which actors find themselves lacking agency to navigate paradoxical demands. Drawing on a longitudinal case study I investigate how the studied nursing department regains agency by establishing third spaces. Third spaces are settings of social interactions, in which actors can enunciate, reflect, and address contradictory issues. The proposed process model explains the establishment of third spaces. This process of how actors can regain agency advances current approaches to navigate pragmatic paradoxes. Furthermore, the paper contributes to relating cognitive approaches with social interaction within the paradox lens. In addition, the paper complements literature on third spaces which tend to focus on their internal dynamics by explaining the emergence and maintainance of third spaces over time.Type: conference paper
-
PublicationType: conference paper