DOI: 10.1108/md-10-2025-3309 ISSN: 0025-1747

From contradiction to balance: toward a dynamic paradox framework for AI strategy

Zhisheng Chen

Purpose

This paper develops a dynamic paradox framework for understanding how firms manage multiple tensions in AI strategy, particularly automation versus augmentation, innovation versus ethics, and competition versus collaboration. Rather than positioning paradox theory as predominantly static, the study builds on its dynamic stream and extends it to AI-enabled settings characterized by recursive feedback and interdependent tensions.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on paradox theory, dynamic capabilities, and AI strategy research, the paper develops a three-layer conceptual framework linking tension identification, dynamic adjustment, and goal balancing. Within this framework, dynamic paradox management is defined as a process model, while tension adaptability is specified as a context-specific organizational capability.

Findings

The framework shows how AI-related tensions become persistent and mutually reinforcing through recursive decision architectures and cross-tension spillovers. It explains how firms may respond through acceptance, balancing, and transformation strategies to iteratively rebalance competing demands.

Research limitations/implications

As a conceptual article, the framework requires empirical validation across industries and organizational contexts. Future research should examine the conditions under which AI-related tensions develop into paradoxes and how the proposed processes affect strategic outcomes.

Practical implications

The framework offers managers a structured logic for recognizing paradoxical tensions, selecting adjustment modes, and aligning innovation, ethics, and organizational adaptation in AI strategy.

Originality/value

This study advances paradox theory in AI strategy by theorizing the paradox complex as a recursive causal system in which locally effective attempts to manage one AI-related tension may displace, amplify, or regenerate tensions elsewhere. It further distinguishes dynamic paradox management as a process model from tension adaptability as a context-specific organizational capability.

More from our Archive