Paradoxical Thinking Analysis

Employees who work in the sphere of business and economics often face numerous situations that require their ability to identify and solve various problems. As a rule, this process is maintained in a particular ordinary way, but sometimes workers perform the behavior that is unusual for them. They may perceive the environment in a new way and act accordingly. Such unnatural reaction presupposes a change from linear thinking to a paradoxical one, which is advantageous in the framework of personal growth and development (Cameron & Quinn, 1988). However, such actions can also turn into a trap for the organization, from which it will not be able to get out till another unordinary event happens.

In my organization, employees are working in cooperation to reach the company’s goals. That is why they always make important decisions together and then work according to them. Still, they may experience the tragedy of the commons, which presupposes quite the opposite. For example, some workers may use the paper from the office for personal needs believing that this will not affect the company greatly. However, their belief would be true to life until the moment others think in the same way because together they will spend lots of paper. Similarly, seeing that the work is slowed down because of the problems with software, employees can call for technical support. But if they wait for others to do so, the trap of missing hero occurs because the obstacle remains (Platt, 1973).

Self-fulfilling prophesies can be involved in the working process if one of the employees treats others as if they work poorly even if it is not so. Such treatment can make that group of workers behave in this way subconsciously and make the

company face the Icarus Paradox. For example, if one innovative business strategy is successfully used more than once, it is likely to turn into routine action that fails to differentiate the organization from its competitors and will lead the firm to failure (Drummond, 2001).

The company may experience winner’s curse if it wishes to cooperate with a particular supplier that provides advanced products. Competing with the competitors for the contract with the desired organization, the employees may overlook the situation when they pay for the products more than they cost. In this way, they can win the competition but lose money at the same time (Bazerman & Samuelson, 1983).

If the employees decide to improve company’s recognition and increase its income with the help of promotion, they may enter a vicious circle. Gaining will be likely to increase from the very beginning, but when the promotion ends, they will decrease. In this situation, it will be crucial for the organization to change the strategy and try another approach that will have similar outcomes. But if such step is not made, and promotion is used again, the company can become depended on it. New images will attract clients over and over, but the end of the promotion will mean decreased sales that would trigger the same action again (Masuch, 1985).

Thus, it can be concluded that the various paradoxes and contradictions that happen inside of the organization due to the behavior of its employees and decisions they make can influence decision-making in my company adversely. They can turn into obstacles that can be overcome without serious heavy toll but may also lead to the extreme failure and end of the whole business.


Bazerman, M. H., & Samuelson, W. F. (1983). I won the auction but don’t want the prize. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(1), 618-634.

Cameron, K. S.. & Quinn R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn, & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Drummond, H. (2001). The art of decision making: Mirrors of imagination, masks of fate. Chichester: Wiley.

Masuch, M. (1985). Vicious circles in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 14-33.

Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28(8), 641-651.

Cite this paper

Select style


PsychologyWriting. (2022, January 15). Paradoxical Thinking Analysis. Retrieved from


PsychologyWriting. (2022, January 15). Paradoxical Thinking Analysis.

Work Cited

"Paradoxical Thinking Analysis." PsychologyWriting, 15 Jan. 2022,


PsychologyWriting. (2022) 'Paradoxical Thinking Analysis'. 15 January.


PsychologyWriting. 2022. "Paradoxical Thinking Analysis." January 15, 2022.

1. PsychologyWriting. "Paradoxical Thinking Analysis." January 15, 2022.


PsychologyWriting. "Paradoxical Thinking Analysis." January 15, 2022.