Hybridity for tension management

Abstract

Paradox, contradiction, and dialectics are common in organizations. This chapter suggests recurring contradictions in social impact organizing (e.g., inclusion versus exclusion, stability versus change, short-term versus long-term change, and mission versus market) are ongoing, dynamic conditions rather than problems to be eliminated. Tensions represent discomfort that comes from contradiction and often arise around personnel, resources, and processes in social impact organizing. Rather than an either-or approach that requires choosing one option over another, hybrid organizing engages tensions by taking a both-and (balancing or integrating opposing demands) or more-than (embracing tensions in ways that transcend contradictions) approach. Numerous examples from research and practice demonstrate how social impact organizers can acknowledge and work with contradictory demands at different levels of organizing.